I wish to state that the phrase in the motion "State and semi-State bodies" has no precise legal meaning so far as I am aware. The party sponsoring the motion have indicated to the Office that it is not intended that this motion should cover Departments of State and I have decided accordingly. It has been necessary for me to take a decision on this matter in order to decide whether Deputy Dowling's claim to raise purchases made by the Department of Defence on the Adjournment this evening should be allowed.
Private Members' Business. - Irish Life Furniture Contract.
(Dublin Central): I move:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the failure of the Government to ensure the use of the purchasing power of State and semi-State bodies including the Irish Life Assurance Co. Ltd. to support Irish industry at this time of serious economic crisis.
You, sir, are ruling that we are prohibited from discussing Government Departments. If you look at the wording of the motion you will see it does not specifically mention semi-State bodies. It also mentions the failure of the Government to ensure that the purchasing power of State and semi-State bodies would be used to support Irish industry. Therefore, I am not sure why you are prohibiting this debate, if it should do so, from being expanded to cover semi-State bodies. Would you clarify that for me, because evidently it has a bearing on a question to be raised on the Adjournment at a later stage? I cannot give any undertaking that we can confine ourselves strictly to semi-State bodies and it is important — I cannot give any undertaking for Members of my party——
It is a matter for the Deputy and his colleagues. If the motion takes into account Departments of State as well as semi-State bodies, then Deputy Dowling's motion would be anticipatory and I could not allow it. That does not confine us on this motion but it would impinge on the motion of the Deputy who wishes to raise a matter later.
You are saying you are prohibiting discussing Government Departments on this motion.
I am saying that if Government Departments are discussed on this motion I cannot allow Deputy Dowling's motion on the Adjournment.
What are State Departments but Government Departments?
My understanding is from the party sponsoring this motion that it is not intended to cover Departments of State.
I do not think that clarifies the point. Is a Department of State a Government Department?
(Dublin Central): I cannot speak for other Members of my party. I have made up my mind on this motion. Deputy Colley and I worded it and it refers to State and semi-State bodies. Evidently you have to decide later whether you will allow Deputy Dowling's motion.
That is blackmail and intimidation.
(Dublin Central): We have been endeavouring to get this matter raised in the House for some time and on each occasion we were ruled out of order, by you on one occasion and then by the Minister for Finance and the Government last Wednesday. It is a matter of vital importance, of interest to people in all walks of life, particularly in the disastrous economic situation we find ourselves in. We want to highlight the facts about manufacturing orders such as that of Irish Life. In other semi-State bodies, and probably Government Departments, there has been failure of Ministers to ensure that the purchasing power of our organisations and Departments are not failing in the matter of the purchase of Irish manufactured goods.
In the present economic situation our manufacturers are meeting strong competition in export markets abroad and now at home as well and it is of practical importance that if we are to recover from this economic recession every person in the country will make his and her contribution. One of the most important ways of helping the nation is by purchasing Irish manufactured goods where at all possible. We believe that in this situation there is a special obligation on State and semi-State bodies to ensure that the purchasing power of their organisations is channelled towards the purchase of Irish goods.
State and semi-State bodies have a vital role to play in these difficult times. We have heard of substantial orders which were placed abroad which should have been placed with Irish manufacturers and the Minister in charge of each Department must be held responsible for the purchases within his Department.
When I first highlighted the purchasing of furniture by Irish Life on 11th December last it was common knowledge among Irish furniture manufacturers that this order would be placed abroad. What they did not know until the contract was practically signed was the name of the firm of contractors it was being placed with. However, the majority of manufacturers here, as far back as September or October, as well as many trade union leaders, notified various Ministers that there was every likelihood this order would not be placed with an Irish manufacturer. The majority of Irish manufacturers were very keen to obtain a substantial order such as this.
We all knew that the offices of Irish Life would be one of the largest to be built in this country and that a substantial amount of furniture would be required. Everybody was keenly interested that the contract would be laid here. We saw a photograph in one of the newspapers of the Minister for Local Government laying the foundation stone, but the facts are that none of the manufacturing companies here succeeded in getting even a contract form. We are aware that the architects for this office block, Robinson, Keefe and Devane, were the people charged with drawing the plans. They in turn employed Organised Office Designs, an English company, on the purchasing requirements of the furniture. When Irish manufacturers approached Irish Life very early they were informed that they would have to communicate with the London office of Organised Office Designs if they were interested in submitting tenders or even in getting specification forms. My information is that several manufacturers in this city and in other parts of the country made continuous efforts to get a specification in order to find out what exactly was required so that they would know whether or not they were in a position to supply this furniture. Every effort proved abortive. They could not get a specification form from the London office. I know one or two eventually succeeded, but the majority failed. I am told this was brought to the Minister's attention. It was certainly brought to the attention of the Minister for Local Government because a company in Navan, running as a co-operative, were keenly interested and were hoping to get at least part of the order. They approached the Minister for Local Government in October and the Minister informed them there would certainly be no problem about their getting a contract form. That would at least put them in a position to tender. What has aggrieved the majority of furniture manufacturers is the fact they were completely ignored. They were given no opportunity of tendering. That was brought to the attention of the Minister for Local Government and also to the attention of the Minister for Finance.
I raised the matter here on 11th December last. That was the first opportunity I got to inform the House that this contract was about to leave the country. I had been told by the furniture manufacturers about a fortnight before that that the contract had certainly gone and it was a matter of trying to find out to what company it had gone. At column 1449 of Volume 286 of the Official Report I said, speaking on the Industrial Development (No. 2) Bill:
A number of office blocks are being built in this city and I sincerely hope Irish furniture will be put into them, particularly those under the control of the Minister for Finance. I am not including the Board of Works because most of the furniture provided by them is made by Irish firms, but an insurance company are building massive offices in Abbey Street and the biggest part of the shareholding in that company is owned by the Minister for Finance. I understand that only a small portion of the furniture is to be supplied by Irish firms. That is a shame. A foreign designer was appointed. He went to a manufacturer whom I know who supplies the Board of Works and Dublin Castle and this man told this manufacturer that his stuff was not of the quality necessary for these Irish offices, the greater part of whose shares are held by the Minister for Finance. I submit that 100 per cent of the furniture going into those offices should be Irish manufacture.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce intervened and said:
Through the Chair, I can assure the Deputy that I have already made my recommendations but under the Accession Treaty I have no legal power and neither has the Minister for Finance to impose those conditions.
I submit that neither the Minister for Finance nor the Minister for Industry and Commerce made any positive recommendations to Irish Life as to where this contract should be placed. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that, under the Accession Treaty, he was prohibited. My information is that a contract of this size does not come within the ambit of being tendered for in EEC countries. If it did then Irish Life would have broken EEC regulations. This particular contract was not published. It was not put out for public tender. It never appeared in the daily Press. I submit that on 11th December last the Minister should have known, and even before that, that this order was about to go outside the country. The contract was signed on 18th December. I cannot understand why the Minister in the intervening period, and in the light of the representations made months previously, did not take positive steps to ensure this order was placed with Irish manufacturers. I doubt very much if the Minister ever informed Irish Life of his desire to have this contract placed with Irish manufacturers.
On 11th December, the day on which I raised the matter here, the Minister wrote a letter to Irish Life. If the tone of the letter is that published in The Irish Independent it would not in my opinion carry very much weight. The letter was written by his Private Secretary. I have not seen the letter and the Minister has not disclosed the contents of any letters to the House. Neither have I seen any letters from Irish Life. According to The Irish Independent:
... Mr. Ryan told the company there was growing concern that the contract for the new modern furniture might go out of the country. It would be helpful, he added, if he could be informed of the Irish Life discussions on the proposed contract.
The letter added:
While the Minister has no wish to become involved, he is likely to be criticised and expected to justify the company's decision should the business go outside the country.
In the present sensitive situation, therefore, I trust you will agree on the desirability of keeping us fully briefed on developments.
All that letter indicates is a fear on the part of the Minister that he might be criticised. There is nothing about any loss suffered by Irish furniture manufacturers. I am not personally concerned whether the Minister is or is not criticised or what his political status is, but alarm about criticism is the only indication that letter gives me. The Minister should have said in that letter that he knew the contract was going outside the country and before the contract was signed he should have seen it. The Minister put no proper directive into the letter to make Irish Life change their decision. Subsequently the Minister changed his mind about 5th December when the contract had gone. That was too late. Had he taken the advice given to him here on 11th November and wrote then the letter he wrote on 5th January the position would be different today. It is quite obvious the Minister did not take the matter seriously initially. It is unfortunate that this situation should have arisen at a time when we know furniture manufacturers and others are going through a most difficult period.
The Minister for Finance and semi-State bodies should buy Irish goods and by their example encourage the private citizen to buy Irish. We expect a lead from the Minister and the semi-State bodies. One of the mistakes made was the appointment of a foreign furniture designer. A new look will have to be taken at the purchasing by semi-State organisations to see if they can be encouraged to buy Irish.
The Design Workshop, under the control of the Office of Public Works, was set up a number of years ago to design furniture for Government Departments and semi-State companies. They are still in operation today, but not on a very large scale. The workshop should be expanded, designers employed and the entire requirements of both State and semi-State bodies should be channelled towards that workshop. I do not mean that the furniture should be manufactured there, but the necessary designs should be sent through the workshop in Inchicore and the designs could then be submitted to various manufacturers throughout the country. They would know what type of design would be most suitable to Irish conditions.
I am informed that it would be very difficult for Irish manufacturers to carry out many of the specifications mentioned on the contract form sent by Office Design. Naturally Office Design are taking continental manufactures into consideration. I wonder were the capabilities of Irish manufactures taken into consideration when the specification was drawn up? I understand that very little thought was given to the potential of Irish manufacturers and how they would be able to avail of that specification.
If something is not done about this situation, it will happen again in other semi-State bodies. Almost all the furniture used in this House and in Government offices and Departments was designed by the workshop. But the workshop could be used to a far greater degree. As I said, it should be expanded and the entire requirements of State and semi-State bodies could be channelled into this organisation. In turn, the workshop could send out contracts for the various Departments. This is one way of trying to help the furniture industry because if things continue as at present there is no doubt that 90 per cent of these industries will go to the wall.
Forty or 50 per cent of the furniture purchased in this country is made by foreign manufacturers. Semi-State bodies which have sent their orders abroad over the past number of years must realise that they have an obligation to our manufacturers. They must also realise that these companies employ Irish people and operate with Irish finance. They have an obligation to ensure that their orders are channelled into these companies. I am not trying to defend bad workmanship. I want to make that clear. There are two sides to every story. Quality, presentation and design are very important. An undertaking should be given that State and semi-State bodies will channel their orders to these companies. The Minister should take a look at this.
It is unfortunate that Irish Life were mishandled. The Minister seemed to think that he was held responsible for the handling of this operation. I believe he was fully responsible for the loss of this order. I blame him and other Government Ministers for not taking positive steps in time. Nobody in this country knew that this contract had gone abroad, except the Minister, who knew about it as far back as 18th December. No public statement was made by his or any other Government Department. I made a statement to a newspaper on 9th January informing the people that the contract had gone abroad. In all fairness I must say that Senator Michael Mullen told the Minister about it earlier. I must give him credit for that. The one person I cannot give credit to is Senator Halligan. He knew about it back in October but we did not hear anything from him until we made it public. If we had not made it public the Minister undoubtedly would have cloaked this operation again. That is the type of hypocrisy we have had over the last two years from this Government.
The Deputy should not use the word "hypocrisy". It is ruled out of order.
(Dublin Central): The Minister tried to justify his actions by saying it was a matter for Irish Life and that they were completely responsible. The Minister made a statement that he was in close contact with the board of Irish Life long before this matter was raised in this House. The board indicated that this was not so. Both cannot be right. Either the Minister or the board is misleading this House. I take the view that the board are right. If the Minister can prove to this House that he had been in close consultation with Irish Life before this matter was raised, he is obliged to prove it to everybody's satisfaction.
We know the Minister prevented Irish Life from putting their case to the public. They had advertising space purchased in the national daily papers. They were told by the Minister not to make any statements on this matter. Confusion has now arisen as to whether Irish Life or the Minister is telling the truth. I say that the Minister had to apologise to Irish Life in regard to contradicting their statements. I further say that the Minister rang Irish Life on 21st January apologising for this matter. If the Minister wants to contradict that, that is all right but I am standing over that statement.
Apologising for what?
(Dublin Central): That the Minister rang the board of Irish Life informing them that he had to contradict their statement the previous day, that much of the statements which they had issued were not facts as he had had them. If the Minister wishes to deny that, well and good, but that is the situation as I have been informed of it.
The Deputy said that I had apologised; now he has made a totally different statement.
(Dublin Central): I did.
I should not interrupt the Deputy. I will give the facts later on.
(Dublin Central): I hope the Minister will mention the phone call he made on January 21st and let us know what he actually said on that day. From that phone call we might see if it is Irish Life or the Minister for Finance who is right. It is unfair that the Minister should try to transfer the entire blame for the whole operation to the board of Irish Life. Several Ministers and some Senators, such as Senator Halligan, have been calling for the dismissal of the board. If Senator Halligan calls for the dismissal of the board, obviously he should also call for the dismissal of the person responsible with the board, the Minister for Finance. It is not good enough for the Minister to move away from his obligations in such a matter.
I doubt now if this order will be placed with any Irish manufacturer and I should like to know when the Minister replies what decision. Irish Life has made. Will it be possible for these goods to be manufactured in this country? Will Irish Life have to pay a penalty if this is so? These factors are very relevant. If we cannot save this particular order at least this debate will highlight the fact that we cannot continue to allow a large proportion of our requirements, especially in the case of State and semi-State bodies, to go outside the country. The Minister and Ministers of other Departments will have to ensure that their requirements are purchased in this country if at all possible. I know certain goods are not manufactured in this country and it will be necessary to import them, but if we are to get out of this grave economic crisis in which we now find ourselves and create jobs for 120,000 people now unemployed we shall have to take positive steps. Surely one of the most positive steps and one which various Ministers are in a position to take is to instruct Government Departments regarding the purchase of Irish goods. Has the Minister seen that proper directives have been given that Irish goods be purchased by all Government and semi-State bodies?
The IDA were fully aware that this contract was going outside the country and this is a fact that I cannot understand. They had discussions with Irish Life architects on the matter in October last. They had consultations with office designers. Córas Tráchtála were also aware there was every danger that this order would leave the country. Is it that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance are so far removed from realities and from the running of their Departments that they are not aware of what is going on? It has been publicly stated by IDA and it has been intimated by Córas Tráchtála that they were aware of these facts but the Minister who should be responsible did not have sufficient interest in the purchasing of these goods to know these facts. It seems an intolerable situation. The IDA have promoted Irish industry— a considerable amount of capital has been given to Irish manufacturers through IDA in an effort to help these industries — and it is very disturbing that the Minister could allow these things to happen and know nothing about them.
The Deputy has one minute left.
(Dublin Central): This debate will highlight the fact that semi-State bodies have obligations as to what they should do as regards contracts they are in a position to offer. I believe that if the Minister had acted when we informed him of the situation in the House and had taken positive steps at that time, by giving the proper instructions to Irish Life, they would have abided by them. But they were not aware that the Minister was keenly concerned because the Minister had failed to communicate with them in a proper way. If he had sent a proper letter directing Irish Life that the contract should be placed with Irish manufacturers I believe Irish Life would have abided by that instruction, but the Minister failed to do that.
I agree with everything Deputy Fitzpatrick has said in regard to this matter. I also agree that there is no point in blaming the board of Irish Life or in trying to put the blame on anybody else. There was no point in telephoning the manager of Irish Life and telling him in simple language to shut up, not to make any statements to the Press and that the Minister was giving that order. The Minister said this and on his shoulders and on the shoulders of the Government must rest the responsibility simply because the Government own 90 per cent of the shares of Irish Life. Since the State owns 90 per cent of the shares in Irish Life the Minister must accept responsibility for the affairs of that company. Consequently, he must be held responsible for the loss of the amount of money involved —about £200,000—to Irish workers. We may take it that wages would have constituted about 60 per cent of that amount. Is it any wonder that the Minister had such a deficit to cope with in his budget? Because of the brutal increases in taxation imposed last week by the Minister about 60 per cent by way of income tax, VAT and all the other taxes would have gone back to the Exchequer from the estimated £120,000 which would have accrued to workers had this contract been given to an Irish firm.
Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to a telephone call made by the Minister to a director of Irish Life on January 21st. The Minister had not the decency to write a letter of apology to the man. He would not wish to have such a letter published under his name, whereas in relation to the telephone call he may, if he wishes, deny in the House that any such call was made by him. As Minister for Finance, the Minister is responsible for the expenditure of all Departments of Government. Can he give us any explanation for allowing tenders for the supply of fibreglass roofs and aluminium window frames for community schools in Cork, Limerick and elsewhere to go to English firms? In respect of the roofing the amount involved is in the region of £240,000. A firm in Carlow contracted for this work but they were amazed to find that the design consultants concerned were from the UK and that not alone were these people appointed to design but also to select the tenders. It is hardly surprising that the company they selected were from the UK also. Of the seven Irish firms who submitted tenders two were regarded as suitable but they were not called in to be given a full explanation of the position as was the case in so far as the UK firms were concerned. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was reported in The Nationalist and Leinster Times a week ago as having said that because of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain the contract had to go to the English firm even allowing for the variation clause of 16 per cent. In this context I would remind Government Ministers that in 1966 the British Government imposed a 15 per cent levy on all imports into their country. On hearing this the then Fianna Fáil Government informed the British that they were breaking the free trade area agreement but the reply was to the effect that this levy was to apply to all countries irrespective of any individual agreements which might be in existence. The then Minister for Finance, Deputy J. Lynch, immediately supported the Irish exporters by granting them 15 per cent to compensate for the import tariff. Therefore, since the British saw fit to break the agreement to help their country's economic difficulties there can hardly be any reason why we, with more than 117,000 unemployed, could not have accepted a tender from Irish contractors even if it was a little greater than the 16 per cent variation clause.
The kind of replies trotted out by Ministers in regard to these matters would indicate that they have no regard for the intelligence of the Irish people. The other day we read in the papers that the contract for an Irish-English dictionary is going to Hong Kong. I trust the Minister will refer to this in his reply. As Deputy Fitzgerald said on television the other evening more conduct of this kind will be brought to the notice of the Minister in the coming weeks. There is not the opportunity tonight to go into details of all the cases that have come to our notice. Suffice it for the moment to draw attention to the fibreglass industry. My sympathy lies with the firm in Carlow who were one of the contractors for the work in the community schools. Is the Minister for Education satisfied that the materials being supplied from the UK are equal to those produced by trusted Irish workers and management? We ask the Minister to bring all these matters to the attention of his colleagues in Government who appear to be living in cloud-cuckooland.
During the budget debate Deputy J. Lynch asked rightly why the Taoiseach has not seen fit to sack three or four Ministers. Why, for instance, has the Minister for Finance not been sacked or, alternatively, why has he not resigned in view of the mess he made of the Irish Life case? Apart from that situation, there is the very serious matter of the mess he made of the economy.
We must keep to the terms of the motion.
I shall endeavour to do that. The motion deals with State and semi-State business. I am concerned in particular about the matter of the firm in Carlow who are engaged in the production of fibreglass. This is a new industry and if they had got this contract they planned to extend, to build new industry on the Dublin Road from Carlow. They had arrangements made to employ a further six people. These people, married or single, are now and will be on the unemployment register. This is not their fault, but it is the fault of two Ministers of this Government, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education. This is a terrible situation. We have all the plans about "Buy Irish" and yet the Government — the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach — are the people who are buying foreign goods and giving contracts to foreign firms at a time like this. If the contract price from a UK or any firm was 20 per cent lower than that at which an Irish firm could do the job, then during this economic recession the Government have brought about, the Irish firm should get the contract. Apart from the jobs that are lost, money is going out of the country and this affects our balance of payment. We have £250,000 going one way and £250,000 going the other. The balance of payments situation alone should influence the Government to give these contracts to Irish firms.
When Fianna Fáil were in Government and the then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was Deputy Joe Brennan, there was a contract for the supply of material for something in the region of £200,000. A contract received from an outside firm was lower than that of the nearest tender of an Irish firm. When the officials of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs presented the then Minister with the contract document and he found that this contract was going to a foreign firm, he told his advisers, members of the civil service: "Take that back; readvertise it, and I will have another look at it and see if we can get an Irish firm to do the job." An Irish firm did get the job. That firm today is going very well and has 700 people employed. That is the type of action we would expect from some of the Ministers of the present Government. I know it was queried by the Auditor-General, but when the position was explained it was easy to realise that when the Irish firm got the work the money remained in the country and people here were employed, and so the Exchequer gained by that. The goods supplied were as good as, if not better than, anything that could come from abroad. I have no hesitation in putting this on the record and Deputies can, if they wish, ask a parliamentary question about it.
The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education have now been taken to task over these contracts, the one for Irish Life being the responsibility of the Minister for Finance and the one for community schools in Cork, Limerick, Dublin, and elsewhere that of the Minister for Education. If they had given those contracts to Irish firms, even when they were 16 to 20 per cent over and above the amount of the contracts of firms in the UK and elsewhere, I do not think any Member of this House, or any person in this country would say anything except congratulate the Ministers, particularly because of the financial position of the country.
There is no point in the Minister for Finance standing up here tonight, or tomorrow, or any other time, and saying to this House: "Right. I am not responsible." He is solely responsible for what happened in the Irish Life contract. He must bear that responsibility, and if he is man enough he should resign because of the mistakes he made. It is terrible to read where Irish Life had this advertisement ready to explain their position to the Irish public, and the Minister said: "No, you do not." This is like saying: "Shut up. I will deal with it."
How are the people in management in this country, particularly in the semi-State bodies, or even in State bodies or Departments, going to defend themselves when Ministers will not allow the people to make a statement? The Minister had not even the courtesy to write, instead of picking up a telephone and apologising. As Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick and I said, he would not do that because somebody could slip a photostat out of the file of the letter received.
In the short time I have left, I should like to put on the record that it has been said that because we are members of the EEC some people might believe that we could not give the contract to an Irish firm. I presume that the Minister must know, because he was a member of the European Parliament before he became a Minister, that he need not even go to Brussels. All he had to do was pick up a telephone. Because of the present financial situation in this country, the Commission in Brussels or the Council of Ministers would give him permission to give this contract to an Irish firm. There is no doubt about that. That is written into the protocol of the Treaty of Accession and there is a copy in the Library for anyone to see. I recall an incident where a person in Brussels said: "You never saw a European inspector in Ireland yet, did you?" I believe they would not worry about the contract, particularly because of the inflation in this country at the moment.
At the Carlow County Council meeting yesterday, where I was present, a resolution was passed condemning the Minister for Education for giving these contracts to firms outside the country when so many people here were unemployed. I want to compliment one of the Labour councillors who supported and voted for the proposition condemning the Minister. I read in the Carlow Nationalist where another Labour county councillor made a statement that he was considering withdrawing support from the Government because of their complete failure in everything, not alone in this but also in regard to the budget and other things. Why do the Ministers not listen to the public? Why have they gone up into the stars, smiling, snarling, aggressive and arrogant? Why will they not listen to the county councils, the trade union movement, to management, to what has been said from the benches here, the front bench of Fianna Fáil for the past three years? All this is leading up to a collapse far worse than the collapse of the Coalition Government of 1957. We had the collapse of the first and second Coalition Government, but in view of what is now happening there is no doubt in my mind that the financial situation and the employment situation will be far worse than it was in 1957.
I wondered for some time whether the Opposition were sincere in their protestations in relation to what occurred in respect of the Irish Life furniture contract. Now I know. Tonight they have displayed a total lack of concern for Irish exporters. They have helped the campaign which is now fermenting in Britain suggesting that in Ireland there is an official policy to boycott British goods. They are making it more difficult than ever for Irish exporters to sell in Britain and elsewhere.
The realities of the situation are entirely different from anything which has been suggested tonight by people whose utterances have shown that their only concern — I will not say their prior concern — is to damage the economic interests of this country hoping, as a consequence, that on the misery they help to generate they will get some political advantage. I want to give the facts to the House, which may embarrass members of the Opposition and may also embarrass some of the people who quite clearly have been supplying them with false information. The question will then arise as to the bona fides of certain suppliers of information to the Fianna Fáil Opposition, assuming that they are uttering correctly what has been passed on to them and that, in itself, may be in doubt.
I should like to deal first of all with the question which has been dealt with at length about the manner in which the State purchases goods. The purchase of goods and equipment used by Government Departments is mainly the responsibility of three offices, the Post Office Stores, the Office of Public Works and the Stationery Office which are known as the central purchasing departments. All purchasing by Government Departments is governed by rules of procedure which are laid down and supervised by the Government Contracts Committee. The procedures are designed specifically to ensure that contracts are awarded in an equitable manner and that public money is spent in a way which will ensure that, taking all relevant factors into consideration, the purchasing departments will get the best available value for public money.
There is no question whatever, as one Deputy who put his name to this motion must know, but that Government contract rules ensure full consideration for Irish manufacturers. In fact, in the latest 12-month period the Stationery Office, for which I have responsibility, purchased 97 per cent of their requirements from Irish manufacturers. In that period the value of all contracts placed abroad by the central purchasing department, where an Irish tender was received, was less than 3 per cent of the value of all such contracts. Even where Irish tenderers were not able to tender to the minimum specifications necessary, or where in the case of some high technology goods in the telecommunications field there was no Irish firm to tender, efforts are made to improve native capacity, and efforts in this direction have been highly successful, with the result that we have now generated very worthwhile jobs in this field.
The situation in relation to Irish Life is not as it is described by the Rip Van Winkles of the Fianna Fáil Party whose contacts alerted them to a possibility on 11th December, on the admission of Deputy Fitzpatrick, that furniture might be brought from abroad to furnish the new Irish Life office. On 20th October, Deputy P. J. Reynolds from Leitrim brought this matter to my notice. Immediately my Department contacted the Irish Life Assurance Company and, following what the company said, they contacted the IDA and Fóir Teoranta. We were informed at that time by the management of the Irish Life Assurance Company that the question of the purchase of furniture for the new office was "by no means settled". There were explanations about technical problems. Accounts were given of inquiries which had been made in the Irish furniture industry. Information was supplied about consultations with the IDA. Following on that information, my Department engaged in detailed consultation with the State agencies, the IDA and Fóir Teoranta.
In November, further representations were made by my Department on my instructions to the Irish Life Assurance Company for the second time impressing upon them the concern of the Government and myself that Irish furniture manufacturers would be given the opportunity of supplying the furniture for the new head office. This is confirmed by a letter dated 26th November and received on 2nd December from the Irish Life Assurance Company saying that the matter was still under consideration and no order had been placed. It was not until 30th December, when we had received a letter from the company saying it had been decided to accept the recommendation of their building committee that, again on my instructions, my Department specifically asked the Irish Life Assurance Company to say what was the recommendation of this committee. It was then, and only then, that the Irish Life Assurance Company disclosed that, in fact, they had been less than frank with me in describing the full position in relation to the purchase of furniture for their new head office.
The Minister for Finance is the holder of 90 per cent of the shares in the Irish Life Assurance Company. That does not give him power to direct the company. The management of the company is vested in the board of the company, and not in the Minister for Finance, and not in any of the shareholders. The State's financial involvement in the Irish Life Assurance Company is minimal compared with the financial investment of the policy holders. The State's investment is fractional compared with the £200 million or thereabouts of the policy holders' money. The State's investment nominally is worth about £200,000.
I just mention that because I hope that, even if we cannot expect objectivity from the Opposition, at least the people will understand that, unlike many other State-sponsored bodies, the Irish Life Assurance Company are a body in which the State holds a partial interest only. There are other shareholders. I think they are about 60 in number. The Minister for Finance has not got the power to direct the board in a particular matter, or to interfere in their day-to-day operations. Nevertheless, most people consider and rightly consider that when the Minister for Finance is the major shareholder in the company indicated, and makes representations that the public interest would be served by placing the order with Irish manufacturers of furniture, adequate weight should be given to his representation. Most people must be perturbed that such weight was not given to his representations and, indeed, the Minister was not informed when he first made representations in response to an approach made to him by Deputy Reynolds that decisions had already been taken at that time to give the order where the order subsequently went——
In October?
——and that for over two months that company led the Minister for Finance, a 90 per cent shareholder representing the public interest, to believe that, to quote their own words, "nothing has been settled" and that the matter was still open.
Is the Minister saying the decision was made in October?
Yes. The matter was open to the extent that the small print of the legal contract had not yet been drafted and settled. It was open to the extent that the document had not been signed and sealed, but decisions had been taken as to where the order should go.
What date in October?
On Tuesday, 14th October, 1975, the board of the company considered a memorandum from the building committee recommending that a particular firm be chosen for the new chief office complex.
Six days before you got in touch with them.
On the 14th October. The board expressed strong views to the effect that they would prefer to see Irish-manufactured furniture used if at all possible, while recognising that the Buerolandschaft concept applied to all categories of staff introduced new dimensions to the Irish scene. The Buerolandschaft concept is a concept in relation to the designing and placing of furniture. The board on that date authorised the building committee to take a final decision in the light of its declared criteria. The building committee made its decision at a meeting which was held on Tuesday, 21st October, and on the following day they notified the architects that the company had decided to accept the recommendation that the firm that ultimately got the contract be given it.
It is not a pleasant thing — that is putting it very mildly — to have to reveal to the public that a body in which the Minister for Finance, as representative of the State interest, has a major shareholding, should have been less than frank in its communications after urgent representations were made to reflect the Government's concern that a particular contract should be placed in Ireland.
Suggestions have been made that I, as Minister for Finance, gave a direction to the company to suppress a certain advertisement on the 21st January. First of all, as I have already said, I have no power to direct; I have power to make representations. We still remain a free society. I made representations in October which were not heeded. I sought information and was not given that information. But I expressed on behalf of the Irish people our annoyance that that should have been so. As soon as that sorry situation came to light, it is not surprising that when I made representations on 21st January, those who had been found wanting in their disposition towards the Government of the country and had been publicly embarrassed because they were found so wanting, should have paid heed to the representations I made on that date. I saw the draft advertisement which was proposed to be published. It was a serious and unjustified libel on the Irish furniture-manufacturing industry, and it would not have been conducive to a proper resolution of these difficulties had that advertisement appeared. That was my opinion and I expressed it. It is fortunate that at least belatedly my views were accepted and acted upon.
While there is a natural annoyance at what has occurred in relation to this aspect of the affairs of Irish Life, it would be very wrong if the company were to be distracted or harmed by a witchhunt in respect of a mistaken decision that was made by the management of the organisation in question in relation to a very small part of the Abbey Street development. The Irish Life Assurance Company caters for over 50 per cent of the Irish life insurance industry. Its annual premiums amount to about £32 million, and of that 10 per cent comes from abroad. It would be wrong to be chauvinistic about the activities and the objectives of the Irish Life Assurance Company. In common with other Irish concerns it has to face in these days growing competition because this country decided to enter the European Economic Community and, in so deciding, exposed Irish Life and other Irish enterprises to competition from abroad. The best way in which that competition can be faced is by going out and meeting it, and Irish Life have been doing that successfully. It is significant that, notwithstanding all the political difficulties and sales difficulties arising out of the turbulence in Northern Ireland, Irish Life has been able to make a substantial inroad in the British insurance market, so that 10 per cent of its business now comes from abroad and most of it from Britain.
In that situation it ill behoves anybody to be raising his voice here in such a way as to lead the popular press in Britain to present headlines and articles and views which suggest that there is in Ireland some anti-British campaign——
We are supposed to shut our eyes to it all?
——and a move to boycott British goods.
Nonsense.
The nonsense may be there but the publicity is real. Representations have been made to Córas Tráchtála, to the IDA, to individual Departments of State, to the Irish Life Assurance Company, pleading for an end to this most damaging public assault on the furniture decision of the Irish Life Assurance Company which is being interpreted abroad as a public demand in Ireland that there be a boycott of all goods from Britain.
The British trade unions have taken note of the protests being made in this area. British purchasers of Irish goods, including British purchasers of Irish furniture have taken note of what they regard as hostile chauvinistic attitudes. I know that the complaints uttered here are not of that nature but we would be foolish indeed if we did not open our eyes to the possibility — it is more than a possibility — that other people might see criticism of the Irish Life decision in a somewhat different light.
It is worthy of note also that the company chosen by the management of Irish Life for the production of furniture — I do not defend the decision of Irish Life — have themselves used a considerable amount of Irish produced materials and there are at least three Irish manufacturing firms who produce furnishing materials who have contracts with the firm in question. Irish goods from the Irish furniture industry and allied trades are now featured in furniture manufactured by the firm in question. Furniture containing Irish materials is now being used by British State-owned concerns and public authorities like British Airways, British Rail, and London Underground.
In one case at least it is because they could not get it anywhere else.
The issue here is whether the Irish Life Assurance Company took adequate steps to find out whether the Irish furniture industry could have met their reasonable needs if given adequate opportunity.
Why did they not advertise for Irish tenders?
It is important in looking at this that we would consider why semi-State bodies were established at all. They were established because Oireachtas Éireann considered it desirable to give certain independence to the bodies in question in pursuit of their day-to-day activities. Deep resentment has been expressed on many occasions about ministerial interference with the autonomy of semi-State bodies.
We will have before us for consideration in the near future a motion to consider the establishment of a parliamentary committee to examine the operations of semi-State commercial bodies, but there is no proposal that examination of the operational results of companies should get down to empowering parliamentarians to direct companies to make their purchases in a particular place and nowhere else. I assume that Deputies opposite, and the critics, would not wish to have all semi-State bodies abolished. Maybe I am wrong. Perhaps they would like to see them all run by Ministers with the aid of the civil service. Perhaps they feel that would be the cure which would avoid developments of the kind which recently occurred in Irish Life. But the cure could well be worse than the disease. My principal objective ever since Deputy Reynolds brought this to my attention in October——
Too late.
Deputy Reynolds did raise the matter. Deputy MacSharry did not. It is not a function of the Minister for Finance or any Minister to have day-to-day investigation of every activity of every company. If he tried to do that he would not be serving the nation's interests. The Oireachtas created semi-State bodies with authority to manage their own affairs to attain certain objectives. I am satisfied that the Irish Life Assurance Company by and large serve Irish public interests and serve them well, far better indeed than many assurance operators in Ireland. More than 80 per cent of Irish Life's total resources are invested in Ireland, a record of which any company can be proud.
I am satisfied also that the Irish Life Company are conscious of their obligations to the country from which they draw most of their revenue, and they have by and large discharged that obligation properly and generously over the years. However, on this occasion in relation to the furniture contract, I believe they were lacking in sensitivity, and that is putting it mildly. They were certainly lacking in that degree of frankness which ought to have existed on the part of a semi-State or quasi-State organisation towards a Minister when representations were made on a matter affecting the public interest.
My concern about all this sorry affair has been to try to bring about a situation in which maximum employment opportunities would be given to the Irish furniture manufacturing industry, and that is why, although I have known of the way in which vital information was withheld from me before now, I have not made a public issue of it because my anxiety has been to cool the situation so that the board and the management of the company and the people with whom a legal contract had been placed would have an opportunity to consider the widespread public indignation about the manner in which this whole thing was handled. Because the motion by the Opposition tonight seeks to censure the Government and the Government alone, and because the Government's record was being put to the test, and because I believe in being frank with Dáil Éireann as I believe other people should be with Ministers of State when they have responsibility towards Ministers who represent the public good, I thought it necessary to reveal the failure to communicate by Irish Life which, to put it mildly, saddens me and disgusts me, and I am sure disgusts most people — that an organisation as responsible as the Irish Life Company should have failed adequately to communicate with the Minister what the true facts of the situation were.
Has the Minister concluded?
He has one minute left.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 4th February, 1976.