There is just one matter of rather cardinal importance that I should like to mention on this Estimate. Last week I asked the Minister, in regard to certain road tenders, whether he had instructed any local authority to accept a tender that was not the lowest tender, and he replied to the effect that in one particular case in the City of Dublin he had instructed the city authorities to accept a tender for a piece of roadwork—£15,495 as against a tender for £12,833, that is an increase of about £2,660, and he stated:
Do shocruíos, i gcás connartha i gCathair Bhaile Atha Cliath chun bóthar asphalt do chur síos, gur cheart glacadh leis an dara tairisgint ba shaoire. B'é fáth go ndearna amhlaidh ná go bhfuaireas comhairle eolgaisigh gur dheallruigh an tairisgint ba shaoire gur mó a theas-tuigh o lucht a déanta tithe gnótha eile do dhúnadh amach ná mar a theastuigh uatha gnáth-shochar do dhéanamh as an obair.
That is, he said, that the reason for refusing the lowest tender was that he was advised on rather good authority that the lowest tender appeared to show that the person making the tender wished more to crowd out other persons tendering than to do the work at a reasonable cost.
I appreciate that the Minister is perhaps trying to do the best that he can, but I do submit that the matter has been dealt with without any thorough examination at all, and so much dis-turbance of mind has been caused, both to the local authority and to the persons who are looking at the way in which the Government is doing its business, that I think some kind of statement from the Minister is desirable in order to ease people's minds.
The position in regard to this matter is that a pretty large contract for asphalting concrete, that is, ordinary steam-rolled asphalt, for about 72,000 yards, was being given. The cost of this concrete has been reduced very, very considerably in recent years. Six or seven years ago it was 15/- a square yard. In Dublin in 1928 it was 7/-; in 1931 it had gone down to 5/-, and this year the lowest tender was for 3/5 a square yard. Now the tender that was accepted was for 4/1 per square yard, and again I say that the Minister's explanation was that he considered that the company that quoted 3/5 per square yard was not tendering in a reasonable way to make a reasonable profit but was attempting to crowd out other companies. Now I suggest that the matter has not been fully examined. I have pointed out very great reductions in costs in the last few years on this particular class of work. I would also point out, and I have instances in which similar work during the current year or during the last twelve months carried out in Britain was carried out at a cost in three instances to my knowledge at 2/11 per square yard; in three instances at 3/11 per square yard, and in two instances at 3/3 per square yard, showing that the tender of 3/5 can certainly not be regarded, from a critical examination, as being a more or less price-cutting tender. The acceptance of the higher tender in the city of Dublin has meant this. Taking the smaller tender of £12,833, normally about 70 per cent. of the total cost goes to labour, that is including the quarrying of stones as well as the laying of the road and making the necessary preparations, so that out of £12,833, which the lowest estimate was for, £9,000 would have gone roughly for labour. Now it is quite conceivable that any good company, such as the company that actually got the contract is, would be very much more out than £9,000 in respect of the labour side of the carrying out of that work, although whereas in one case there would be £3,800 odd left to pay for materials, to pay for overhead charges generally, and to give suitable return to capital on the basis of the costs for labour for £9,000, which I think the Minister would find on examination to be a reasonable figure, even to the firm that is actually carrying out the work, it leaves them £6,495 to cover materials, to cover overhead costs, and to cover return to capital.
I suggest to the Minister in this case what labour will get out of this contract is exactly what it would get out of the £12,000 contract and what really has happened is £2,600 of public money has gone to the new company partly as a return to capital. I do not know what the capital involved in the present company that has got the contract is, but I really would suggest that it amounts to a presentation to the company of public money to the extent of nearly half the capital of that company on this one work. It has, I submit, left the city of Dublin in the position that it could have got one-fifth more work done and labour could have got an additional £2,000 into its pockets as wages if the lower tender were accepted, and I submit to the Minister the case requires very, very critical examination, and the House, local authorities and the public generally would welcome a statement on the matter that it was going to be thoroughly examined. I would almost suggest that the new price controller, as a kind of a trial run as to what he is worth, might be brought in and given the job of examining what exactly the position is with regard to these three contracts.