At question time to-day I pursued an unusual course. That was to raise a particular case, giving the names of the persons concerned. I asked the Minister for Local Government if he would direct an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of a contract entered into by the Country Donegal Board of Health with Mr. C. Boyle, Drimnacullen, Inver, Co. Donegal, which contract was subsequently broken by the board of health. Ordinarily, persons entering into civil contracts have their remedy at law, and if the second party to the contract fails to perform his part, an action lies when the ordinary machinery of the law is available. In this case, however, we have a situation in which a poor farmer is confronted by the local authority in Donegal, which brazenly repudiates its own signature and says it will not perform the contract it undertook to perform vis-a-vis him. The history of the case is, shortly, that the Donegal Board of Health, under the Gaeltacht School Meals scheme, caused a public notice to be issued announcing that they would consider tenders for school meals supplies for the period 1st October, 1936, to May, 1937, at their meeting to be held on 21st September. They said tenders must reach their office not later than 11 o'clock on 21st September and asked tenderers to be good enough to convenience the board by sending them in a few days earlier, if possible. That public notice was issued on 1st September, 1936, and was addressed to former contractors for school meals in County Donegal Gaeltacht Area and the public at large. There was a form on which these tenders had to be made, and Mr. Boyle, of Drimnacullen, got the appropriate form, and on 17th September submitted a tender in the proper form to the board of health to supply milk for the period named in the notice, that is, from 1st October, 1936, until May, 1937. On 29th September, Mr. Charles Boyle, of Drimnacullen, received a letter, signed by the Secretary of the Donegal Board of Health, saying on 29th September tenders for supplies of milk from 1st October, 1936, to 1st May, 1937, had been under consideration, and that the tender of Mr. Charles Boyle for new milk at 1/- per gallon to be supplied to Scoil Náisiúnta, An Chillín, was accepted. He was required, however, to furnish a certificate of registration under the Dairies, Cowsheds and Milkshops (Ireland) Order, 1908, and that he probably did.
On the 24th October Mr. Charles Boyle received the following letter from the Donegal County Board of Health and Public Assistance:—
"A Chara,—I understand that you have an order to supply milk to the above school (Scóil Náisiúnta, An Chillín, Uimh. 117) to the 31st instant. After that date no more milk will be required from you, as a cheaper tender was accepted from another contractor, and the board directed that the milk be procured from this latter contractor."
I ask the House to note carefully the terms of the letter purporting to end this contract. It says: "I understand you have an order to supply milk to the above school to the 31st October." That letter was sent by the Secretary of the Board of Health. But he had himself actually written on the 29th September to Mr. Charles Boyle, Drimnacullen, telling him he required him to supply milk to Killian National School until the 1st May, 1937. When Mr. Boyle got the letter of the 24th October he approached the board of health and they told him they were not prepared to discuss the matter with him. He then came to me, and I said: "Your proper course is to consult a solicitor and to sue these people." He said: "I have no money." I made a careful inquiry into the man's circumstances and satisfied myself that he had not the money to set the law in motion to recover damages for the breach of his contract. In the face of that fact I personally addressed a letter to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. I know that Ministers are very busy, and for that reason I very seldom take up and pursue a case with Ministers themselves. Deputies know that these questions can be handled through the civil servants who always display the very greatest courtesy in these matters, but I thought that this was a very special case and was one that should be handled by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, to whom I addressed a letter. The Minister, in reply, informed me that he had "no function which would enable him to intervene in the matter." It was undesirable that I should engage in a protracted argument with the Minister, and I was satisfied that what the Minister had stated was, so far, correct, and that he had given the matter the attention that he was in a position to give. I did not wish that any further time of the Minister should be wasted by going into the matter with him in his office and discussing it there.
I am not now asking the Minister to do anything like sending down to the board of health a sealed order compelling them to accept Mr. Boyle's tender. What I am asking the Minister to do is to institute an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding this case and to satisfy himself that some grave misconduct has not occurred in connection with this tender. The excuse given by the secretary for his procedure is that sometime subsequent to the date at which the tender was accepted, the secretary of the board of health discovered that a tender from Mr. J. Gallagher had got stuck in the box and had been found there. That tender offered milk at a lower price than the price fixed in the accepted tender from Mr. Boyle. That may be true or it may not. But if it is true, that, in itself, is no justification whatever for breaking a contract freely entered into. For instance, suppose I, acting as a merchant, announce that I have a parcel of flour for sale and am prepared to sell it by tender; a number of other merchants write to me each offering a price for that flour. Having examined the offers I notify one merchant that I am accepting his tender. Suppose I find sticking in my letter-box, a week later, a better offer, I cannot go down to the store to stop the man who is carrying away the flour. I cannot say to him: "I will not give you the flour now because a better offer came." It is no defence for me to say that the letter got stuck in my box. It is my misfortune if it did; once I have made a sale and once I have accepted a tender there is no escape for me; if I attempt to get out of that contract, civil proceedings will be taken and any court in Ireland will give damages against me.
Is the case here that a poor man should be denied his legal remedy because he has not the money to start proceedings against a local authority? If no impropriety has taken place there can be no objection to an inquiry. If there has been impropriety I say there should be an inquiry. Deputies may say this is a very trivial matter and the sum at stake is a very small one. That may be, but it is not a small sum for a farmer in the West of Donegal. What might be a very small sum to one of us would be a very substantial sum to such a man. But not only that, but the man who has honourably entered into a contract and has had the success of getting that contract is now feeling humiliated by having his milk rejected and his contract given to a neighbour. We all know what country life is and if a thing of that kind is allowed to go it will inevitably be said in that neighbourhood that there is some thing queer about that matter; it will be said that either there is something wrong with his milk or else that he secured the contract by some queer twist and that somebody else had gone in and untwisted the twist. That is not fair. If Charles Boyle has acted in bad faith, then let him be exposed. But if he has acted straight and above board, then let there be an inquiry and let that man be vindicated and given back the contract to which he is entitled.
I see Deputy Brian Brady here and I believe that in a matter of this kind he would like to see justice done to the humblest man in the county. I see Deputy Blaney here too. These two gentlemen will wish to see justice done in the case. Both of them are members of this body in Donegal. Charles Boyle has grave grounds for complaint. He authorises me categorically to make complaints. He feels a sense of injustice and he thinks he has been gravely wronged. I ask for an inquiry. If these two Deputies here, who are members of that body, have any regard for its reputation, and for public administration generally, they will second my request for the fullest inquiry and the fullest examination. I ask this not because it is an issue of great material value, but for the purpose of clearing up a matter that is absolutely vital to the proper conduct of local government in this country. That is, that when contracts have been entered into by a local authority, these contracts will be awarded on the merits, and that once awarded there will be no attempt to wriggle out of them. I regard this as a matter going right to the root of probity and straight dealing. I ask for nothing unreasonable. I ask for no judgment to be passed on one side or the other, but I do ask that there be a fair investigation into all the circumstances. Let Charles Boyle be exposed if he is in the wrong and acting mala fide. If he is, he deserves to be exposed to the ridicule of the neighbourhood for having assailed his own neighbours. If he is in the right let him have the contract to which he is entitled. The alternative is to deny this man his just rights. I cannot imagine that any Deputy or Minister in this House will desire to see that sort of thing come to pass. I ask for this inquiry, and I am satisfied from the circumstances surrounding the case that there is abundant reason for an inquiry being held.
