Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 May 1925

Vol. 5 No. 4

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (COMBINED PURCHASING) BILL, 1925. - COMMITTEE STAGE.

In this Act

the expression "official contractor" means a person appointed under this Act to be an official contractor for the supply of a commodity to local authorities;

the expression "standard price" means the price which an applicant for the position of official contractor states in his application as the price at which he is willing to supply to local authorities the commodity to which the application relates;

the expression "local authority" includes a county council, county or other borough council, urban district council, rural district council, board of guardians, town commissioners of a town, or any body which is or may be established by or in pursuance of any enactment to perform any of the functions of any of the bodies here-inbefore mentioned, and also any committee or joint committee of or appointed by any of the councils, boards, commissioners, or other bodies aforesaid;

the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Local Government and Public Health;

the word "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister by regulations made under this Act.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I move:—

After the word "to" in line 19 to insert the words "one or more."

My object in moving this amendment is to ensure that a person may be appointed an official contractor for a limited area, and not necessarily for the whole of the Free State. It does seem unreasonable that a firm, say, in Cork, if it wishes to become an official contractor, would have to undertake to supply a distant area like Galway, Sligo or Donegal. There is no doubt that a warehouse in Cork would be unable to compete with firms in those areas. I do not know whether my object is best effected by the amendment to the definition I propose, but if the Government accepts the principle so that the idea can be given effect to in the most convenient manner I would be satisfied. The case I make is that the firm need not necessarily quote for the entire State to become an official contractor. There is another point—I do not know if it arises now—bearing on that: what does supply mean? Does it mean a delivery price, or a price at some stated depot, or the depot where the official contractor's main business is carried out?

Mr. KENNY

I would like to support the amendment. There is a general feeling that the effect of the Combined Purchasing Bill tends towards centralisation, and that the large business concerns in and around Dublin would eventually get practically the monopoly of all the business of the public bodies throughout the Free State area. That at any rate is one of the arguments put up to men like myself on public bodies. I do not think that is the intention of the Legislature or the Minister, nor would it be a good thing. I think this business should be diffused as far as possible over the country generally, so as to promote industrial activity and revival. Of course, it may be argued that it is open to any firm or business concern to fill in the tender form that will be submitted to them, and if they enter into bonds they can become eligible to be put on the Government's list.

That, however, would mean that they must undertake to supply such demands as might be made on them. A firm in a town like Waterford, say, might not be in the position, financial or otherwise, to enter into such a large undertaking, though they might be able to cater for the requirements of the public bodies within the area of their own county, or two or three counties adjoining, the transport conditions of which they would be absolutely familiar with. In another year that firm might possibly be in a position to cater for five or six counties, and so on. That would give local industry and enterprise an opportunity of establishing and developing itself. That would tend also towards breaking down the present tendency to centralisation in and around Dublin. That aspect of the case is one that would strengthen the hands of public men on public boards, like myself, in our support of the Government policy in regard to this Bill. I do not think the Government can put forward any convincing argument against a suggestion of that sort.

Mr. BENNETT

I think Senator Sir John Keane left the impression that he did not know the effect the amendment he has proposed would have. If he tries to ensure that the area should be delimited as regards supply, then I am afraid that would tend to injure the Bill, which is intended to benefit the people.

Sir JOHN KEANE

On a point of explanation, I am perfectly certain that the amendment covers what I want. It is only a question as to the manner in which it should be effected, but I am perfectly clear as to what I want to get effected.

Mr. BENNETT

The Senator wants to effect decentralisation of supply. I think one of the objects of the Bill must be to tend to reduce prices, and in that way profit will accrue to the various public bodies. I am of that opinion. The suggestion has been made that small firms would not be able to enter into competition for these contracts, but we have the example which is published in the press to-day of the Minister for Industry and Commerce advancing firms money for the purposes of their business. I think if the Minister for Industry and Commerce was satisfied that more efficient industrial development would be secured, that the firm who wished to extend its area of enterprise, as suggested by Senator Kenny, would probably receive financial help from the Government. I think that to delimit the area, as suggested for the purposes of contract, would minimise the object of the Bill, and that a reduction of prices would not follow. For this reason, I cannot support the amendment.

Mr. LINEHAN

I support the amendment. Applicants for the position of official contractors under this Bill should be at liberty to limit the area in which they will be prepared to deliver their goods.

If that is put into the Bill it will have the effect of increasing the competition and of lowering the prices that the local authorities will have to pay for their commodities, because it is quite evident that some contractors would be able to supply their own immediate locality at a much lower rate than they would be prepared to supply the entire of the Saorstát with some particular commodity in connection with which they had applied to be made the official contractors. I, therefore, hope that the Minister will see his way to allow these applicants to limit the area, whether it be a county or a province, in respect of which they can make application to be appointed official contractors.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

I think there is very much to be said in favour of Senator Sir John Keane's amendment, though possibly it may be thought desirable later to alter the drafting of it to some other form of words. We are anxious, of course, for economies in local administration, and personally I welcome the Bill. I think it is a good Bill, and that it will make for economy in local administration. It may happen, however, that local traders, who might be in a position to supply the local councils with perfectly good articles at a lower price than contractors from a distance, will be prevented from tendering, and also that the local councils may not have an opportunity of examining the quality of the goods with which they are to be supplied. Of course there is always the danger that the system may do away with competition, and that, for instance, firms with large capital and highly developed business methods may be able, eventually, to obtain a monopoly for the supply of certain articles required by the local councils. I think that is a point that the Government might give some further consideration to. It may be that they already have in the Bill safeguards against these objections, but I would urge them to consider the points I have put forward and see whether they could not do something on the lines of Senator Sir John Keane's amendment and in the direction of meeting his views, which, I think, are sound.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Is there anything in the Bill—I at least cannot find it—which compels the official contractor to undertake the supply of the whole Saorstát.

Sir JOHN KEANE

There is nothing in the Bill that would lead me to believe that the contrary is the case. I followed the debates in the Dáil on this Bill very closely, and I gathered it was the intention of the Government that the official contractors should supply the whole country.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

So far as I can discover the Bill is not so as drafted.

Sir JOHN KEANE

My amendment, I hope, will remove doubt on that point.

Mr. BARRINGTON

Would I be in order in moving a further amendment?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

We will deal with one amendment at a time.

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

I think, for the better understanding of this amendment and the effect of it, it will be necessary to deal briefly with the general purpose and principle of the Bill. The Senator is probably aware of how and why this system of general purchasing was initiated. It arose during a period, a couple of years ago, when the local authorities, owing to the loss of their annual grants-in-aid, were compelled to have recourse to very considerable economies. A small beginning was made at the time, in the way of pooling the needs and the requirements of the various institutions through the country, by purchasing centrally. It was found that that produced a two-fold effect: one was that it was possible by that means to give very substantial assistance to struggling native industries, and secondly, to effect very considerable economies in the expenditure of local rates.

Senator Sir John Keane, speaking yesterday on the Second Reading of this Bill, said that while he would be cordially prepared to support the Government in sweeping the whole system of Local Government out of existence, he resented this Bill, and the principle underlying it, as an undue interference with the discretion of local authorities. That seems to me to be a rather extraordinary point of view: that there must be no central control, guidance or assistance, but that whatever evils exist must be allowed to run out to their logical conclusions, and then Senator Sir John Keane and others will cordially support the Government in a complete abolition of the system of local government. It does seem to us a more equitable course to endeavour to control and to guide the activities of local authorities in the best interests of the ratepayers. This Bill is to that end. I would like to read for Senators a very short list of articles showing the prices at which they were purchased locally and the prices at which they are purchased by the Central Purchasing Bureau.

I have here in my hand the list showing the prices paid by the Tuberculosis Dispensary Committee in Tipperary as against the official central prices. The following are some items:—Tea, without specification, 2s. 4d. per lb. local price; centrally, as per specification, 1s. 11d. per lb. Rice, without specification, 23s. 4d. per cwt. local price; centrally 20s. 3d. Cornflour, without specification, 60s. per cwt. local price; centrally 28s. Strawberry jam, without specification, 24s. per doz. local price; centrally, with specification, 21s. Pearl Barley, without specification, 37s. 4d. per cwt. local price; centrally, with specification, 21s. Soap, without specification, 46s. 8d. per cwt. local price; centrally, 40s. Carbolic soap, without specification, 52s. per cwt. local price; centrally, 34s. 6d. Starch, without specification, 65s. 4d. per cwt. local price; centrally, with specification, 36s. Whiskey, without specification, 96s. per gallon local price; centrally, with specification, 78s. 3d. per gallon, and so on.

I could entertain the Seanad for the remainder of the evening with lists showing the enormous differences between the prices paid by the Central Purchasing Department and contracts entered into in the years 1922, 1923, and 1924 by local authorities. Now, naturally there is objection and resistance to this Bill. There always will be resistance to any measure that is introduced which hits any established vested interest and unquestionably—it is not denied—this Bill hits certain vested interests through the country, and these vested interests immediately become articulate by reason of intelligent anticipation of losses ahead. There are and must be losses to certain local people, and there are and must be very substantial gains to the general body of the ratepaying community, and a thing that must always happen is that when the interests of a particular individual conflict with the interests of the great mass of the citizens of the country, the individual's interest goes to the wall. We consider that that is perfectly sound and proper.

Now, to come down to the amendment, the actual effect of the amendment, as distinct from what was urged in advocacy of it, would not be serious, because it would leave it entirely within the discretion of the Minister as to whether or not he appointed an official contractor under Section 3, sub-section (1) for a general supply throughout the entire country, or for supplies to particular institutions. I may state that the idea underlying the Bill is that contracts will be entered into for the supply of particular commodities to all the local authorities—asylums, county homes, and so on—and it is in that way that the maximum economy is effected. Obviously, if you simply limit the operations of the Bill to contracting for a particular county or a particular area, you do not get the same effects from it, and you are not able to give the same assistance to local industry as would otherwise be given.

We have, for instance, on the files a letter from Pierce's, of Wexford, expressing their appreciation of what has been done for their firm by reason of the fact that they are able to contract for bedsteads for all the local institutions of the country. They set out figures showing the number of extra men they were able to take on arising out of that fact, and generally they express very great gratitude and appreciation. You will not get that effect, and you will not be able to give, in the same measure, assistance to local authorities if you break up your contract system and confine it to small areas. Equally, you will not be able to hold out to prospective manufacturers the same inducements as you will be able to hold out if you are in a position to say, that if they can produce an article up to standard and up to specification they have a very reasonable prospect of obtaining the contract for the supply of that article to all the local institutions in the State.

Now, the resistance to this Bill is understandable and is perfectly natural. It is as natural that the people who lose by the Bill should object to it, as it ought to be that the people who will gain by it will approve of it. Unfortunately, the great body of people who will gain by the operations of this Bill are probably ignorant of its provisions or of its probable effects, whereas the few who will lose by it are very well aware of, and very much alive to, its provisions and its consequences. Consequently, you have a more articulate opposition to the Bill than you have support for it. The Bill will mean enormous economics and an enormous saving of the public rates—a very necessary and desirable saving of the public rates.

Further, it will put into the hands of the Government great power for the helping of native industries, for the fostering of nascent industries and, probably also, for the promotion of new industries by reason of the big contracts all over the country that they would be able to place for certain articles provided these articles can be turned out up to standard and to specification. The effect of that latter consideration would be very largely lost if you were to confine the operations of this Bill to a small area, and if you were to say that a contract can only be entered into for a particular local authority. The virtues in this central purchasing idea are:—(1) The considerable economy in rates that can be effected thereby; and (2) the very big support that can be given to existing local industries, and the very big incentive that can be held out for the promotion of new industries, while you lose, if not exactly by the amendment, at least by all that has been urged in favour of it, greatly in both of these two considerations.

Mr. de LOUGHREY

I am going to support the amendment, and I hope the Seanad will do likewise. I think the Bill is a good Bill, and there are great possibilities of Irish industries being benefited by it, but I have some experience of local bodies, and I do not think that the Bill is going to effect all the great things the Minister has claimed for it. I have been a member of local bodies for over twenty years, and I would like to stress that point, because the Minister stated that the only resistance to the Bill was being made by people who had something to lose by its adoption. The average local council or mental hospital committee has really not such a great regard for local traders or manufacturers as all that. They would, of course, like to spend the money in the locality where the rates are raised and paid, and that is only a natural desire, but if they are able to get some commodity cheaper in Dublin or Cork than locally, then they are going to buy it in Dublin or Cork. The opposition does not come altogether from people who have monetary interest in this thing.

The Minister read out a list that may or may not interest people without experience in these matters. I have a little experience. He told us of tea that was bought locally at 2s. 4d., and centrally at 1s. 11d. We follow the practice in the Central Hospital and the County Home, Kilkenny, of taking the buying department price, say, at 2s. 4d. We then advertise for tea from local traders at the Department's prices. We ask for so many chests of tea at 2s. 4d. Our practice was to send the whole lot, labelled with letters or numbers to distinguish them, to an official tea-tester, and I may say these tea-testers were recognised by the old Local Government Board. In no case did the Department's tea come out first. The local merchants were always able to supply tea of a better quality and at the same prices as the Department. There are other matters, such as soap, mentioned. We bought soap through the Department for the County Home, Kilkenny, but it could not be used. The Department's specification must have been poor, because the soap was of a very poor quality. Take jam. I had a cutting from a Cork paper which I gave to a Senator yesterday, dealing with the supply of jams to the Mental Hospital in Cork and elsewhere. This jam, served out to the inmates, was anything but pleasant. Sickness broke out after it, and the doctor reported that there was a lot of foreign colouring matter used in the jam. At any rate, it was decided by the Cork Mental Board to procure jam locally.

I am in favour of the principle of this Bill, but I do not like the suggestion that the whole of the opposition to the Bill comes from interested parties. It does not. I have been engaged for many years in local administration. I do not know much about the rest of Ireland, but in the place where I come from, and I am Mayor of my native city, we sit in the council, men from the city and men from the plough, and we thresh matters out, and public money is spent to the very best advantage. I do not like this business of suspicion of local authorities and local tradesmen, and I support the amendment if it was only on that ground alone. We ought to give local bodies some discretion. They will act in the best way. There is to be an election for local bodies next month, and I do not think that we should be harassed with the idea of being regarded by the Department in Dublin with suspicion. We ought all to recognise that there is a new spirit of civic duty and responsibility, and we ought to give men who come into public positions some little responsibility and let them feel that they have some power of their own instead of always having this menace of a central authority ready to pounce upon them. I believe they may be left quite safely to themselves. I never saw them give anything away very softly. From my knowledge of them they make sure to get good value for their money. Perhaps there are some things that could be got from the central authority and money saved in the transaction, but there are other things that could be got locally better and cheaper.

Doctor GOGARTY

The proposed amendment, in my view, does not tend to improve the Bill, and in the discussion of these groceries we have got away from the main point which the Minister made. As I understand it, the amendment would take away from the Minister that power of fostering discrimination that was shown in the incident of Pierce's Factory, while it would not add anything to the general prosperity of the country. When we talk of soap and tea, and commodities for these different institutions, we are immediately up against the contrast between the middleman and the manufacturer. It is difficult to support an amendment which has not got any definite character. It would not be any improvement in the Bill except to narrow down the Government's discretionary power, so that my remarks must be confined to trying to see what would be the result if the amendment were carried.

I may say no local authorities could compete successfully with a bureau, because freights will largely dominate prices. There is nothing in the amendment that improves on the Government's good intention towards fostering local industry. In other words, the amendment does not make parochial the sources of supply. It is so shadowy and difficult to give it a character that instead of fostering suspicion of tea-testing, and increasing prices of soap, the Government is showing, by having central powers of choice, how it can raise factories. But in the nature of things contracts must be largely decided by the price of freights, and you cannot invent a parochial factory, or cause one to spring up, so that it can meet the power of buying cheaply which is vested in a central bureau. I think that letter of Pierce, who is not a supplier of soap or tea or anything of that nature, is enough to convince anyone that the Government has done well, particularly as it brings out the contrast between the middleman who is not doing the best for this country and the producer from the raw material.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think there is some difficulty in the way here as to Sir John Keane's amendment. I have looked through the Bill and am under the impression—of course, I may be wrong—that there is nothing in the Bill which compels the Minister only to appoint an official contractor for the entire Free State. If there is nothing of that kind in the Bill, then the only argument Sir John Keane can rely upon is the fact that the Minister for Justice has frankly stated that that is the Government policy and intention whenever they are called upon to put the Bill into effect. If that is so, that intention is not going to be defeated by this amendment and, therefore, if Senator Sir John Keane wants to accomplish his purpose—that is, that a contractor prepared only to supply a restricted area should be entitled to be selected—then his words are not strong enough to accomplish the principle he aims at, and I think the House understands the principle he is anxious to accomplish. The particular words of the amendment will not, I think, accomplish his purpose, because it still leaves it entirely in the discretion of the Minister, and the Minister has told us that the policy of the Government will be if the Bill is passed only to appoint official contractors for the whole Free State.

Mr. BENNETT

My reading of Section 6 is that it leaves it within the power of the local authority to contract with anyone they like subject to the provision that it is a proper contract.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

There will be nothing to prevent the Minister, if he sees some case for it, advertising a contract for a particular area if the consideration of transit and so on points to the desirability of that. Consequently you have not there the expression "official contractor means a person appointed under this Act to be the official contractor for the supply of commodities to the local authorities of Saorstát Eireann," but the general expression "local authorities." Normally, as I said, the probability is the contract will be for the supply of local government institutions in the State. If, in special cases, there would seem to be considerations pointing to the desirability of making a contract for an area rather than for the entire State it would be open to the Minister, under the Bill, to contract accordingly. Now, Section 6 leaves it open to the local authorities to purchase otherwise than from the official contractor. It puts in the proviso that in the event of their so doing they must record the reason for such departure, and satisfy the auditor that the buying otherwise than from the official contractor was justifiable other than on public grounds.

The thing is not absolutely hidebound and stereotyped. If there is a case for departure, and if the local authority feels that the departure can be justified on public grounds, reasonably justified, then they can go ahead with that purchase, recording the reason for the purchase and the considerations which caused them to buy otherwise than from the official contractor. That must be judged by the official auditor—the propriety, or otherwise, of such departure. Senator de Loughrey entered, it seemed to me, into a wholly unnecessary defence of local authorities generally, and protested that they were expending local rates to the best advantage. They are, and have been, considerably helped to do so by the establishment of this Department. The figures, after all, tell the truth, and are better than mere generalities. For every institution in the country figures can be produced showing the saving effected for the rates of that area by central purchasing rather than local purchasing. It simply stands to reason that if the local authorities of the country are enabled to pool their requirements and purchase centrally, and eliminate certain local profits that would otherwise take place, that they can spend the rates to better advantage. I say that quite apart from the other consideration of the very substantial impetus that can be given to local industries by this process of buying.

Mr. KENNY

I would say with regard to what the Minister has stated, that if his contention is correct, then local businessmen should not be able to compete in any way with the larger contractors who would come in under the guarantees of the Ministry, and who could engage in mass production. They would not be able to compete, either in the matter of quality or price, with these large official contractors. That would appear at first blush to be beyond controversy. A man producing in thousands can nearly always undercut a man who could only produce in hundreds. The result in practice is not found to be so. It may be the desire of the Ministry to give the ratepayers of the Free State generally this great advantage in supplying articles to public bodies at the minimum cost, but in practice it is not working out so. I would like to give an instance in connection with the Mental Hospital in Waterford. I had the figures, but, unfortunately, I forgot to bring them with me. We took sixty articles on the official list, and we advertised for these articles. In thirty-one cases the local contractors beat the official prices. The local contractors did not know, as in the case cited by Senator de Loughrey, the price in the official list of the articles. How is it that in thirty-one cases the local tender was below the official price? Evidently we might draw the conclusion that these large official contractors put in a price that suited themselves, and that they were profiteering on these articles. That deduction might very reasonably be drawn, or per contra, that the local man was a philanthropist, and was selling his goods under cost price. These are hard facts. When the Minister quoted hard figures I quote hard facts against him.

I am in favour of the general principles of the Bill. I believe the community in general has benefited largely by the effect this matter has had on contracts generally. It has chastened these people very considerably, and the result has been shown in the more moderate prices at which they now tender. There is another matter that I would like to draw the Minister's attention to. In the wording of this measure it would be almost impossible for such a thing to happen again. What I desire to state is that during the currency of the contract the Minister has seen fit to alter the prices on the official list. We had certainly one case, and I think two cases, of that sort in the Mental Hospital in Waterford. We had a contract for and ordered goods at the official list price, and between the time of the order and the delivery of the goods, the invoice came along with something more in addition to the listed price. We thought that was a mistake, but as a result of the correspondence that took place between the contractor, the local body and the Ministry, we were ordered to pay the increased price. From a business point of view that is——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think, Senator, you are wandering away from the amendment under discussion. You are pointing out a new matter that is not covered by the amendment. That would be a very important matter and you could provide for it in an amendment of its own. It would certainly seem desirable that official contracts prices should not be varied once the contract is accepted.

Mr. KENNY

What I wanted to get away from was the tendency towards centralisation. I believe the object can be achieved in this way. In the amendment the main principle is to save the ratepayers from loss and to give to public bodies an article at the minimum cost. That has not been achieved, because, as I say, these official contractors are putting in prices seemingly above what they are justified in charging. Under this system, although there is a clause stating that the local contractor is not debarred from tendering, if the public body accepts a local tender they must state the reason why they did so. That is not sufficient to encourage local enterprise. A local man has no inducement to extend his business, whereas if he were allowed to test his enterprise and his facilities, by taking in a few counties—taking into account the transport conditions in the county with which he is familiar—he will venture to send in a good price for three counties or one or two counties around, within a particular compass or radius. You then encourage local enterprise. If that man makes a good thing out of such a contract, well, then, he will say: "I will extend my business now, and I will try to cater for a wider area." In that way, you encourage local enterprise and get away from the tendency towards centralisation.

The EARL of KERRY

After all that has been said on this amendment I confess that I am quite unable to understand why the Minister did not accept it in the first instance. I understood from him that it certainly did not knock the bottom out of his Bill; it did not even impair the functions of the Bill in any way. If he held that it was likely to do either of these things I should certainly not support it, but he was far from saying either. It seems to be rather in the nature of registering a hope—a pious hope it. may be—that there will not be necessarily a single official contractor for any specified object throughout the State. In such circumstances I cannot see why we should not give our support to the amendment.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I do not consider it a sufficient reason for the acceptance of an amendment that it does not knock the bottom out of a Bill. In fact, I would be inclined to lay it down as a general rule that an amendment should only be accepted when it is an improvement on a Bill. I do not consider this amendment is an improvement, and I would ask the Seanad to reject it.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I should like first of all to deal with an apparent legal difficulty, from a lay point of view. It would appear to me to work in this way. The definition of an official contractor is an individual who contracts to supply one or more local authorities. Then under Section 3 the Minister gives public notice that within a specified time he will receive applications from persons desirous of being appointed official contractors for a specified time in respect of one or more specified commodities. A party can then apply to be appointed an official contractor for one or more of the commodities. Whether the Government accept the contract is another matter. I see nothing in this Bill which would make it a condition that the Central Department should accept the lowest tender, and that seems desirable. I feel that as we go through this Bill we find a number of other things that will also require amendment. I am not concerned with the second reading aspect of the case that the Minister dealt with. I do not think—it was unconscious, no doubt— that he properly interpreted my views on this. I think he stressed it flagrantly from his own point of view, but that is perhaps legitimate in debate. He quoted a number of instances where economies had been effected in the case of recent purchases where the Government bought against specification, and the local authorities purchased without specification. All that is entirely irrelevant to this amendment. It is assumed that in every case there is a specification. The amendment does not prevent particular contractors from offering to supply the whole country.

The Government will have in due course, I have no doubt, before them tenders for the supplying of all the local authorities, and they will also have tenders for the same commodities to a restricted number of authorities. They can choose between them, but surely if anybody is prepared to supply a restricted number of local authorities at a cheaper price than another individual is prepared to supply all the local authorities, the party who is prepared to supply the restricted number at a cheaper price should get the contract in respect of these areas, and the other contractor can be given the contract in respect of remaining areas, or if there is a legal difficulty in so limiting his contract it can be advertised again in respect of the remaining areas. It is quite a simple matter. Is that not the policy the Government adopts in respect of the supplying of the Post Office stores, and there is no legal difficulty? It is just as necessary that we should see that there is economy in the administration of the local authorities as in the administration of the Post Office. I know in the case of the Post Office stores, in the case of telegraph poles an individual is allowed to supply any number he chooses to specify, and another individual is able to supply the remainder. It does not all go to one person. This section will restrict the area of competition, and only big people will be able to enter the field. We know how rings are formed. They are much easier formed if only a few firms are involved, say, in the case of any commodity like bedsteads; there are only two firms who can supply bedsteads in quantity and finance a supply for the whole country. It is very possible that such firms will put their heads together, arrange the prices and pool the profits. That is a common occurrence. I think this amendment does not in any way militate against the principles of the Bill. It improves the Bill, and for that reason I ask the Seanad to support it.

Amendment put and declared carried.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I might point out that I think the Senator would be well advised to consider, between this and Report, the effect of the amendment, because my view of the construction of this Bill is that the words in that line, "for the supply of a commodity to local authorities," means in law one or more. I think it is in the Bill already. However, the Senator is quite right in having it put in if he wishes to have it.

Sir JOHN KEANE

The Government knows the wishes of the House, and I take it that they are quite prepared to co-operate with us now to carry our wishes into effect. If the Government's legal advisers would look at the matter in the light of this amendment I think they would be satisfied that it is satisfactory.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think what you want to accomplish is that, prices and everything else being equal, the preference should be given to a man who is prepared to tender only for part of it.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Not so much that, sir. But that if an individual is empowered to tender for a restricted area——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think that is in the Bill.

Sir JOHN KEANE

—and then if his tender is the lowest he will get the contract.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You have not put that into the amendment.

Sir JOHN KEANE

We will go into that later.

Mr. HAUGHTON

I do not think that the Minister mentioned whether the prices were delivered prices. Take this speciality that Senator Sir John Keane mentioned—telegraph poles. Would a firm in Cork, or in a distant part of Ireland, if their tender for telegraph poles were accepted, be expected to deliver them in Dublin at the same price as a Dublin firm, or is the price to be on rail at the place of dispatch?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Of course that is not a thing about which one can speak generally. I take it that something will depend upon the terms of the invitation to tender, and our conception was that the Minister would issue invitations for tenders for some commodity to be supplied to a particular area. That might be the entire area of the State, or it might be, for special reasons in the case of some special commodity, a smaller area. But if the conception is that such a general invitation is to be issued and that after a contract has been entered into, the matter is to be thrown open for cut-throat competition on the part of everyone who is prepared to supply, let us say, one local authority, that is something with which the Minister would find himself in disagreement.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Perhaps the House would think it proper now to allow this other matter to be taken up. It was not pursued in the absence of Senator Colonel Moore.

Further consideration of the Committee Stage of the Bill deferred.