Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Oct 1927

Vol. 21 No. 4

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - EXPIRING LAWS BILL, 1927—SECOND STAGE.

I move the Second Reading of this Bill. A memorandum has been circulated amongst Deputies which indicates what is the effect of the various enactments which will be continued by this year's Bill. I think there is only one addition to the enactments which were in the previous Bill —that is one in part 3 of the Schedule, namely, the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act.

I would like to have information concerning two enactments which it is proposed to continue. One is the Unemployed Workmen Act, of 1905. In the memorandum circulated to Deputies on this it is stated that the machinery of the Act was not widely availed of in Ireland. The distress committees were financed out of Parliamentary Grants for the unemployed. The Grants ceased to be voted at the time of the European War and were not received for the purposes of the Act. It is difficult to see then what the purpose of continuing the Act is. Is it the intention of the Government to encourage the establishment of these distress committees, and is it their intention to make the necessary Parliamentary Grant for the purpose? If so, I think I would be opposed to continuing the Act because I feel that the establishment of such committees would merely give the Government an opportunity of putting on the committee's shoulders its own responsibility in the matter of the relief of unemployment.

The other Act on which I would like information is the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act, 1917. I notice in the memorandum concerning a number of other Acts that it is stated they are being continued pending the introduction of permanent legislation in the near future. In the case of that Act it is not stated that a Departmental Committee, I think on Workmen's Compensation, met in 1925, if I am correctly informed, and submitted a number of recommendations for patching up the existing legislation concerning the payment of compensation to injured workmen. One of their recommendations, I think, involved the repeal of this Act which it is now proposed to continue. I would like to know if it is the intention of the Ministry to accept the recommendations of their Committee and to patch up existing legislation, or whether they propose to do what we here believe to be necessary, namely, to introduce an entirely new system of workmen's compensation. The present system was devised to meet the needs of a highly industrialised country and is unsuitable here. We on these Benches stand for the nationalisation of insurance in all its branches, but in this particular matter, the payment of compensation to injured workmen, we believe it is an obvious case for a State insurance scheme. I would like to know if it is the intention of the Ministry to give consideration to that suggestion?

The Minister has circulated a memorandum dealing with the measures which it is proposed to continue. It would have been helpful if he had included in the memorandum some notes with regard to the measures which are being discontinued or dropped, because one finds it necessary to compare this measure with the one introduced last year to discover what measures are being dropped. Complaint has been made to me with regard to one of these measures. It is in connection with the prolongation of the Insurance Act. It has been represented to me that this will impose a hardship on very many people who under this Act were getting certain benefits in the matter of insurance although they have been unemployed. Exception is taken to the fact that this Act is being dropped without consultation with any representatives of bodies of workers, of friendly societies or insurance societies. Some explanation is necessary as to why that action has been taken. I think it is not right that some reference was not made to that in this memorandum, whose object, I take it, was to give some information to Deputies with regard to this Bill.

There is one Act being continued here that I personally am not in a position to say much about, but as to which there has been a good deal of complaint as regards its working—that is the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act. Perhaps a statement from the Minister in charge of the Bill as to these complaints which I am sure must have reached him as they have reached other Deputies in the House, would be advisable at this stage. Complaints have been made that local authorities are compelled to purchase material under the Act which they could get in their own locality at least as cheaply. I do not know whether or not there is any foundation for these statements. I am sure, however, that the Minister is familiar with them, and a statement from him on the matter would be of interest.

took the Chair.

On the question raised by Deputy O'Connell, another point arises in connection with the same Act. I would ask the Minister to pay some attention to it before Deputies are asked to vote for a continuance of the measure. It is asserted, and I think with a good deal of truth, that the Act is availed of very largely by the officers of local bodies to purchase goods on special conditions—conditions which they are not entitled to. Simply because of their connection with these bodies they are able to give orders for their own personal requirements. I think that has led to a good deal of discontent in connection with the measure, and certainly, to my own knowledge, has caused a great deal of discontent amongst traders. It is probably a good measure in essence, but I think it is rather too thorough. It would hardly pay to have tenders submitted and examined for the requirements of a number of local bodies, and then find that the orders from any one institution only amounted to a few pounds a year. Probably it would be a great deal better if combined purchasing were confined to certain important requirements of these bodies and if orders that only amount to a small sum in the year could be purchased in the ordinary way. It has to be remembered that the hostility of traders towards this measure is a big factor. Being ratepayers they feel that they have a grievance when they are ignored in connection with orders. They feel that the Act works to their utter exclusion from any custom. I suggest that these are matters for the consideration of the Minister. I also suggest that care should be taken to see that officers of local bodies are not able to avail of the provisions of the Act for their personal advantage, and that the conditions with regard to goods purchased under it should not be so thorough as they are.

I would respectfully urge the Minister to amend the Combined Purchasing Act so as to make it more acceptable to the cities and towns outside Dublin. My information is that so far as Cork City is concerned, combined purchasing has inflicted very grave injury on many of the local shopkeepers and on local industries. As the last Deputy stated, an amendment of the Act in the direction of naming a figure, £100 or £200 or any figure over the few pounds suggested could be made at which the Combined Purchasing Act might begin to operate. It is certainly ridiculous to suggest that important local bodies such as the Cork Corporation must purchase small quantities of certain scheduled articles through approved contractors. The grievance of many local authorities is that they feel the money which is being spent and which will continue to be spent by them, should be spent in the area of charge, or where the rates are paid. It would make this Act more acceptable, or less unacceptable, to these bodies if amendments in the direction I have indicated were made.

There is another phase of the question, and I think in this connection we will find the Minister somewhat sympathetic; that is the effect it has on employment. I am not going to enter into a discussion on unemployment now. We will have time to do that next week. But I would point to this fact, that the Act has tended largely to increase the number of unemployed in the areas concerned. Of course it is quite obvious that, where goods are ordered through this central purchasing body, they must, of necessity, come mainly from Dublin, and largely from across the Channel. I understand that many commodities which are not manufactured here are imported. I could give several instances which would go to show that Irish industries are suffering largely as a result of the operations of the Act. I would suggest to the Minister that he should amend the Act in the direction indicated by Deputies, so that it will not tend to operate as it does at present, and create unemployment. It might be suggested that many of those who are unemployed as a result of the operations of the Act would have the alternative of following their employment in the places where the commodities are manufactured. That would not solve the difficulty. It would increase emigration, and the object of Deputies on these Benches, in calling attention to these matters, is to see that as far as possible articles required by local bodies will be, if not manufactured locally, supplied after tender by local merchants.

I would like to call the attention of the House to two of the Acts it is proposed to continue. No. 7 is The Workmens' Compensation (War Addition) Act, 1917, and No. 8 is The Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918. Both of these are war-time measures. The staple industry of the country, agriculture, is at present back to pre-war level. Any Deputy who has to go to fairs and markets knows that. It is high time that we began to consider that as far as the laws are concerned we must consider them in the light of the state of industry in the country. These expiring laws should not be continued beyond the period that they were intended to serve. I do not think it is possible to cut them out altogether at present, but the sooner the legislature remembers that the staple industry of the country is back to pre-war level the better, so that our laws relating to other branches may be brought back to the same level.

In the matter of the Unemployed Workmen's Act, 1905, I understand Deputy Lemass to say that if we were going to make use of the provisions of that Act he would oppose its continuance, but if we were not he would let it pass. As a matter of fact, the provisions of the Act have not been used here, and I do not see on the horizon at the moment anything to indicate that the provisions of this Act for setting up special Distress Committees will be used. But I am anxious not to lose an Act that would enable us to do this if, in very special circumstances, it might be desirable, for one reason or another, to do so. In the matter of the prolongation of the Insurance Act, 1921, which is not being continued, it is not correct to say that that Act is being dropped without consultation with the various people concerned. The matter has been gone into by the National Health Insurance Commission, and in paragraph 12 of their Final Report they recommend very strongly that it be discontinued. The Act arises out of the fact that in the period of depression—1921-2-3—the Act was passed in order to give an additional period of time to keep in insurance persons who, by reason of unemployment, would drop the rights they had to insurance, and it has been continued from year to year to the extent that there are perhaps on the register of insured persons nearly 90,000 more than there ought to be. Some of these 90,000 people, simply because they have not been traced by the insurance societies, are either dead or have emigrated, or in one way or another not entitled to insurance, will not be requiring it. But in the mean-time, because they are on the list, certain reserved funds that are part of the finances of the insurance scheme are being drawn on to keep them in benefit. It has been agreed by the insurance societies that it is most undesirable, from the point of view of the finances of the scheme, that the Act should be prolonged.

Does the Minister mean the friendly societies?

The whole volume of evidence given before the National Insurance Commission on the part of the insurance societies. Taking them off the list by not continuing the Act will mean that the reserve fund will not be drawn on to the extent that it has been drawn on, and it is fairly generally conceded that the provisions are not required in the present circumstances. With regard to the Combined Purchasing Act, the position is that the Act expires in June next year, but in actual operation as a statute it has been working only about two and a half years, although the machinery for assisting local authorities to carry out combined purchasing existed before the statute was actually passed. There is no doubt about it but that very great results in the matter of economy to the ratepayers have been obtained, because economy that came from standardising and from getting a better class of article brought into use has been brought about. The report of the Local Government Department for the years 1922 to 1925 contains statements of comparison between the prices that were obtained locally before the Act came into being and the prices now obtaining, and to give some idea of the savings that it has been possible to bring about, the following information will be useful:—The whole cost of combined purchasing for the year ended 31st March, 1927, was £4,115. During the six months ended 30th Sept., 1927, on gelignite for road purposes, as between the old and the new prices, there was a saving of £2,917, and on one kind of soap—tallow crown—the saving has been £662. The total saving on these two articles during six months was £3,579, or 87 per cent. of the total cost that the different local bodies were called upon to bear as a result of the operations of the Act for twelve months.

It is difficult for the Department to get complete statistics as to the saving that there has been, for the reason that the Department is a contract-making one and does not systematically collect statistics. We have come to the time when we realise the value of the Act. For instance, the County Board of Health in Kerry estimates that it saved £3,000 last year, and the cost of the Act to Kerry was £113. The Board of Health in North Tipperary estimates that it saved £1,000 last year, at a cost to it of £76. The conditions with regard to mental hospitals have been particularly stable for some years, and we are able to take these institutions and see from our experience in regard to the main items of expenditure in them that there has been a steady decrease in the average cost per head. Whereas in 1923 the cost per head for clothing was 68/1d.; in 1924 it was 67/1.; in 1925 it was 57/1d., and in 1926 55/1d., so that the cost has been brought down pretty steadily from 1923. The same applies to bedding and furniture, which were 36/- per head in 1923 and 28/11 per head in 1926. Statistics are available to show us that very great savings have been made throughout the country.

When the Act was passing through the Seanad an amendment was brought in making it simply to run for a period of three years. I would even suggest that the Combined Purchasing Act might be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill of next year, so that you would have a period of five years' experience of the working of the Act before you faced the framing of a permanent Bill. I am perfectly satisfied that there is no Deputy who would not subscribe to a permanent Bill on the lines of the present Act if we were able to put statistics before him in the proper way. Some misunderstanding appears to exist with regard to it. For instance, Deputy French, on the 12th October, suggested here that public bodies are being forced, against their expressed wishes, to get their supplies from a central department in Dublin. The supplies are got from practically all over the country. It is a contract-making machinery that exists in Dublin. Deputy French also suggested that even where goods could be bought cheaply in the country, and bought as well, local bodies are compelled to buy in Dublin. There is nothing in the Act to prevent a local body from purchasing locally if it can get the same value in price and material, and it is quite clear, from the experience of local bodies, that they are not able to get the same value locally. It is quite reasonable to expect that where you have a large number of bodies spending between them, on a fair estimate, half a million pounds in the year, combined purchasing and central contract-making must bring them very large savings and must make the financial burden of the ratepayers very much less than it otherwise would be. I think that Irish industry has been materially assisted by the Combined Purchasing Act. The statistics are not yet completed, but we have figures that show that for the six months ended 30th September last at least £75,000 has been paid to Irish manufacturers for goods supplied to local bodies. It is no doubt possible that the larger cities benefit as against the smaller places. But the Central Supplies Committee consists of five persons, two representing the county councils and councils of county boroughs combined, two representing the urban centres, and one representing the chambers of commerce. So that, as far as the smaller towns are concerned, they have at least two out of the five representatives on the Committee. They are better represented than the boroughs.

Whether you could improve your scheme by confining the contracts to a small number of items in which there are very large purchases, I think it is very hard to say. These are matters that another year's or two years' experience will tell us on what lines we ought to proceed. It is very hard at the moment to say. If you take an item like white enamel I find that the price in Cork is 27/6; the trade list price is 11/-. While you might not use very much white enamel, there is a great difference between 27/6 per gallon and 11/- a gallon. I think a person would be tempted to say that, even though you were not using very much white enamel, it would be better to pay 11/- for it under the contract of the Central Purchasing Board than, in order to endeavour to support the local people, you should pay 16/6 per gallon extra for it, even though it is a case where local people are concerned.

These are matters that can be gone into in the meantime, and more information with regard to the Act can be got in perhaps a very short time. If you watch the extent to which the number of contractors on the trade list has developed you will find that whereas there was a good deal of local purchasing in 1924, there was less in 1925, and less again in 1926. All this is pointing in the direction that the local authorities saw they were getting better value both in good quality articles, standard articles, and price by buying through the contract centrally made. Including this Act now in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act will give the House generally, and the Department a better opportunity of seeing what is the result of the Combined Purchasing Act, which was in statutory working for the last two and a half years. Although it has shown very great returns it is only now beginning to show how great returns are possible. Including it now in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act will mean that we need not make up a new and permanent Bill between this and next June. We have first to get a lot of work through and, from my own point of view, I would not advise that a new permanent Bill would be undertaken until the year after next.

I do not agree with the Minister in all he has stated. I am chairman of the Limerick Mental Hospital Committee, and I know that several complaints were sent on to the Department in reference to this system and without any results. For instance, there was an objection made to our taking a local contract for tobacco. Our Committee objected to the tobacco that was sent down from the Central Purchasing Board. We could get a superior tobacco for perhaps a halfpenny or a penny per 1b. more. Still we would not be allowed by the Department to buy that tobacco for the unfortunate patients, and we had to give them bad stuff. Deputy Bennett, on the other Benches, will, I think, bear me out in that.

I rise to challenge one point made by the Minister. In the course of his speech he said that the reduction in the cost per head in mental homes was, in his opinion, due to the Combined Purchasing Act. He would have been more correct to say that that was due to the illegal reduction of the employees' wages in the mental hospitals.

took the Chair.

With regard to the arguments made use of about the Compensation Act and the Commission that was set up on the matter, I have to say that I have already stated, in answer to a question, that legislation is being drafted and has reached a very advanced state in one of the drafts. I cannot say when it will be ready, but that legislation, or, rather, the draft of it, has been founded on the report of the Committee, and in the main it is carrying out the recommendations of the Committee.

With regard to the other Act to which objection was taken by Deputy Brennan—the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act —I would like the Deputies to know that this Act does not automatically increase the charges. It only enables these undertakings to apply for leave to increase the charges. It is quite necessary in some cases, but it is not being used in very many cases at the moment.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a second time"—put and agreed to.
Committee Stage fixed for Thursday, 27th October.
Barr
Roinn