Vol. 75 No. 13
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), page 2, lines 29 and 30, to delete the words "during the period to which and to the local authorities to whom such appointment related" and substitute the words "as such official contractor".
This is a drafting amendment. At the time of the application to be appointed a contractor the person would not be an official contractor. The words proposed to be omitted are not applicable.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), page 2, to delete lines 31 and 32.
This is also a drafting amendment. The definition of "prescribed" is now included in amendment No. 39 at the end of the Bill.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), page 3, to delete line 35.
This is a drafting amendment. The "public notice" is nowhere referred to in the Bill as "a notice inviting applications."
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1), page 3, line 39, to delete the words "one or more particular commodities" and substitute the words "a commodity or of all or any of two or more commodities similarly specified."
This is, likewise, a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 3 to delete sub-section (2)
Under the Bill, as introduced, a person appointed as official contractor would be bound, firstly, by his statements in the application for admission: secondly, by the conditions prescribed by regulations and, thirdly, by undertaking entered into in pursuance of Section 7. It is considered that this position is too complicated and it is proposed to omit the procedure for entering into undertakings except as regards two matters—Irish manufacture and conditions of employment. I do not propose to move Section 7 and, therefore, this sub-section becomes unnecessary.
I move amendment No. 6:—
To delete sub-section (3) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-section of this section, every application, made in pursuance of public notice given by the Minister under this section, for appointment as official contractor shall be made in writing in the prescribed form and manner and shall contain the prescribed particulars, which shall include—
(a) a statement of the price at which the applicant is willing to supply the commodity or commodities specified in such application during the period and to the local authorities sated in such notice,
(b) a statement showing in the prescribed manner the quality which the applicant is willing to supply of such commodity or each of such commodities, and,
(c) a statement that the applicant is willing to conform in respect of such commodity or commodities with the prescribed conditions of supply"
This is a restatement of sub-section (3) to fit in with the arrangements where undertakings are not required, save in the two cases mentioned—Irish manufacture and conditions of employment.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (4), page 4, line 20, to delete the word "directions" and substitute the word "authorisation" and in line 24 to delete the word "direction" and substitute the word "authorisation."
This is a drafting amendment consequential on other amendments. The expression "special directions" is being given a particular meaning in amendment No. 39 and, in order to avoid confusion, the word "authorisation" is substituted in this sub-section for "directions."
I move amendment No. 10:—
To delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following sub-sections:
(1) The Minister may by order provide that every application for appointment as official contractor for the supply of a commodity specified in such order shall be accompanied by an undertaking by the applicant that, in the event of his appointment,—
(a) such commodity when supplied by him in pursuance of such appointment shall be manufactured or produced in Ireland, and
(b) if he manufactures or produces such commodity at any time during the period of his appointment, the wages paid and the conditions of employment observed by him in such manufacture or production shall be not less favourable to his employees than those required in the execution of contracts with a Minister of State.
(2) When an order has been made under this section in relation to applications for appointment as an official contractor, no application for appointment as such official contractor shall, so long as such order remains in force, be considered unless it is accompanied by the undertaking mentioned in such order.
(3) If any official contractor fails to carry out an undertaking entered into by him in pursuance of an order under this section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £10.
(4) The Minister shall exercise the powers conferred on him by this section in so far as it appears to him from time to time to be practicable so to do.
(5) The Minister may by order at any time revoke an order made under the first sub-section of this section.
This is the amendment which deals with undertakings in regard to Irish manufacture and conditions of employment. In Section 8, as introduced, these matters are dealt with by "inclusion in the terms of employment" and there is no power by which they can be enforced. The amendment enables a specific undertaking to be obtained from the applicant and provides that failure to comply with this undertaking is to be an offence.
Does the Minister say that every article which it is proposed to put on this list is manufactured or produced in Ireland? If not, it seems to be absurd to put a clause like that in a Bill if we are not able to enforce it. I do not know if it is proposed to put motor cars on the list. If so, they are not manufactured or produced in Ireland.
Obviously, only those things made here will be put on the list.
What does "made here" mean?
Manufactured here.
Completely? Would you have any percentage of value added before you would deem an article made here?
I cannot say that.
I shall come to the Minister's assistance. A gentleman set up here in the manufacture of bootlaces. He brought in the bootlaces and put tags on them. Is that "manufacturing" bootlaces? Another gentleman was manufacturing hollow ware. He brought in the hollow ware and sprayed enamel on it. He had a 75 per cent. tariff to stimulate that activity. Is that "manufacture"? Another enterprising warrior set up in this State as a manufacturer of razor blades. I think he brought in the blades and punched the holes in them.
Oh, no! He brought in the blades with "Made in England" on them and he polished that off.
Is that "manufacture"?
He was polishing off England.
Are the razor blades that had "Made in England" on them of Irish manufacture?
It would be unreasonable to expect me to go into items like those, but these points will be considered and the matter will be dealt with in a reasonable way. Articles that are made here will be specified, and I do not think that there is any fear that articles not made here will be be included in the list.
I ask the Minister to give special attention to the razor blades.
I move amendment No. 11:—
To delete sub-section (2).
The Government frequently tells us how anxious they are to abolish Partition. It seems to me that there is an excellent chance to begin here. They could allow our fellow-countrymen in the North to compete for these contracts on the same basis as people in this portion of the country.
Deputy Benson is a mild man. I think that this is about the richest thing that ever happened. Barnum and Baily's Circus is being called out in the United States of America——
It is a pity that Deputy Dillon is not with them.
To direct attention to the monstrous injustice of Partition. All Parties combined within the past 48 hours to proclaim to the world that Partition is an evil, menacing not only our domestic peace, but the very existence of the Commonwealth of Nations and the peace of the world. We have enacted a Constitution in which we have ignored the existence of Partition and asserted the sovereignty and the inalienable right of the Irish people to the integral territory of the traditional Irish nation. We have changed the name of the country. We have claimed the citizens of Northern Ireland as citizens of Eire and cast the cloak of our protection around them. We regard any interference with them as interference —most rightly—with our own people.
And I hope successfully.
Most successfully.
The Minister does not hope anything of the sort.
There is a bit of jealousy about that.
Wait a minute. Most successfully. The united voice of Dáil Eireann was heard and with great success. Would it have had such success if, in the middle of the proclamation of our united resolve to recognise the people of Northern Ireland as our own, a Bill had been produced which contained a rider that they were our own so long as they did not take any of the tariff-mongers' plunder! But the minute the boys saw there was any chance of a hand from Northern Ireland deterring the hand that was plundering the pockets of the citizens of Éire, a sub-section has to be put into the Bill to the following effect:
"In this section the word ‘Ireland' does not include any area which is not within the area and extent of application of the laws enacted by the Oireachtas."
My God, if that Act was passed in the British House of Commons we would wreck the Commonwealth of Nations; we would declare war and despatch the Muirchu, with its attendant cockle-boat behind it to bombard Liverpool.
The showman again!
Is the Minister not ashamed to stand over that sub-section? If anybody outside this country purported by Act of Parliament to declare that the terms of the Constitution were a fraud and a lie, would not the Minister have denounced it as a presumption? At whose instigation is a sub-section put into the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Bill to say that, the Constitution not-withstanding, the word "Ireland" does not include any area which is not within the area and extent of application of the laws enacted by the Oireachtas? There is a special provision in the Constitution declaring that the word "Eire" does include every acre and the territorial seas of Ireland.
And just what it should do, too.
Here is a sub-section solemnly inserted in this Bill to declare that the Constitution is a lie. Who got it put in?
That is a nice way of putting it.
Is it not true? Did the Deputy read the Bill?
I did, and I have not much sympathy with what you are saying now.
Do I exaggerate?
The Deputy could not do that. That is one thing he does not know how to do.
Here are the words:
"In this section the word ‘Ireland' does not include any area which is not within the area and extent of application of the laws enacted by the Oireachtas."
Is that not a deliberate giving of the lie to the terms of the Constitution? Does Deputy Hickey approve of that sub-section?
I do, of course. We have not the North with us because it is petted too much. We are giving the North too much petting and that is keeping them out.
Do you take the view that in so far as the Constitution does claim the North, it is wrong? I may say that the Deputy's Party did not claim that. They were clamorous when they cordially endorsed that provision. They regarded it as a prudent and a just declaration of the traditional rights of the Irish people. The Deputy's leader, Deputy Norton, worked himself into a lather of patriotie fury on that matter.
It is no wonder we would, and the sooner England gives up the hypocrisy in regard to the North, the more reality there will be about our discussions.
Who is denying it here? Is it not our, own Parliament that is denying it? Does the Minister deny that that is a categorical denunciation of what is in the Bill? Why is it put in? Is it put in because, Constitution or no Constitution, tariff-mongers in this country will not stand over competition from outside the tariff wall? Is it not time the Minister faced that fact? Why is that put in there?
For the obvious reason that if we were not to put that in we could not possibly protect our goods at all. We might as well bring in the whole of Britain.
The main point is that the article is made in Ireland.
Our power to enforce tariffs does not apply to the Six Counties. We might as well have no protection policy if we did not include that, and Deputy Dillon knows well that that is so. I do not think he is doing much good by harping on that point. If we have not all we desire under our Constitution, it is not our fault. There is a stronger power keeping us from exercising our rights over the whole of the country.
But this sub-section is inside our power.
It has to be there, because we could not protect our industries if it were not.
Why?
Because the North of Ireland would be left open and everything would come in through the Port of Derry and elsewhere.
But this concerns articles manufactured and produced in Ireland, not exported from the Six Counties.
Anyway——
Anyway, that is that.
Until the day comes, and it might not be as far off as some of the people over there would wish——
Oh!
Not all, but some who are already indignant and enraged at the progress we have made. When the time comes and the country is united, then——
The Minister avoids the issue. The point is, whether the phrase "goods produced or manufactured in Ireland," is to be interpreted in accordance with the meaning of the Constitution or whether the moment the Constitution begins to function in regard to any legislation in this State, we are to upset its provisions by deliberate exclusion. Deputy Hickey talks of hypocrisy. Who is practising hypocrisy in this country? If they draft and enact a Constitution declaring that Ireland consists of the Thirty-Two Countries, and on every occasion when that declaration proceeds to function they pass special legislation saying that, notwithstanding that declaration, it is not true——
What is preventing us from making it function—you are trying to avoid that?
Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Bill—that is what is stopping it. The Deputy is going to vote for it.
I would like to know is it the Constitution or the Combined Purchasing Bill we are discussing?
It is not the Constitution.
Our Constitution made a certain declaration as to the significance of the term "Ireland." This section is put in on account of that Constitutional declaration. Suppose "Saorstát Eireann" was there, the necessity for this sub-section would not exist, because "Saorstát Eireann" had a certain meaning in law. For "Saorstát Eireann" in the new Constitution we substituted "Ireland" or "Eire" and it is because that was substituted that this sub-section becomes necessary. If the Constitution had never been drafted, that sub section would never have appeared in this Bill. That sub-section is designed for one purpose only and that is to avoid the Constitution, a bound volume of which was recently presented to His Holiness the Pope.
The Deputy is bringing His Holiness into it now.
Is that true or is it false? It is the truth and it shows you where it is a matter of codology or fraud or clap-trap they will talk till the cows come home about the desire for unity, but where it is going to cost one penny, where it is going to reduce profits by a farthing or a penny, up the spout goes Éire and out of the hat come the Twenty-Six Counties. Certain individuals may say, "We have got our grip on the throats of the consumers and, Constitution or no Constitution, we are going to hold on." It is not an edifying spectacle and I do not envy the task of the Minister in forcing through this House a proposal designed to negative and make absurd the provision of the Constitution about which he was flag-wagging the whole of this country.
Now, drop the flag wagging.
I am prepared to admit, like Deputy Dillon, that the Constitution decreed that it shall govern all Ireland, and I also admit that this section as it stands is a bit embarrassing for the Government. At the same time, I question whether every member of the Fine Gael Party would support the amendment in the name of Deputy Benson. We all know quite well it would be absolutely impossible for the Government to go into Northern Ireland and find out for themselves whether the goods were being produced there or not, or whether they were being produced under good conditions. The Bill strives to secure that the goods will be produced under good conditions. Also, as the Minister has pointed out, it would be impossible to ascertain whether the goods were being brought in from England.
Absolutely impossible.
It must also be admitted that every shade of nationalist opinion had decided to boycott the North until they came to their senses.
I move amendment No. 12:—
Before sub-section (1) to insert the following sub-sections:—
(1) The Minister may by order provide that every application for appointment as official contractor for the supply of a commodity specified in such order shall be accompanied by an undertaking by the applicant that, in the event of his appointment and of his manufacturing or producing such commodity at any time during the period of his appointment, he will permit such manufacture or production to be inspected by the Minister.
(2) Whenever an order has been made under this section in relation to applications for appointment as an official contractor, no application for appointment as such official contractor shall, so long as such order remains in force, be considered unless it is accompanied by the undertaking mentioned in such order.
(3) The Minister may by order at any time revoke an order made under the first sub-section of this section.
This amendment is rendered necessary by the omission of Section 7.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (1), page 5, lines 42 and 43, to delete the words "on his appointment as such contractor."
This is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (4), page 6, line 47, to delete the words "of Saorstát Eireann."
If the words "of Saorstát Eireann" are left out, what is the significance of the phrase that is left?
This Bill was drafted before that change in the Constitution.
It was brought in last December.
The words "of Saorstát Eireann" are not necessary. The word "Government" is sufficient. We are deleting the words "of Saorstát Eireann."
It now means the Government of Éire?
It is considered that the word "Government" is sufficient. It is clear that there is only one Government concerned.
You had better watch that.
We have already discussed the other point; there is no question of trying to avoid putting in the words "Government of Ireland" there. It is simply considered that the word "Government" is sufficient. The words "of Saorstát Eireann" are not necessary.
If it was previously considered necessary to define the word "Government" by the addition of the words "of Saorstát Eireann," why is it not now necessary to define it by the addition of the words "of Éire?"
We are not trying to avoid that point, which has already been discussed, and which we knew was coming up for debate, but on reconsideration it was thought better to cut out the words "of Saorstát Eireann." That is what is being done.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In sub-section (2), page 7, lines 5 and 6, to delete the words "on his appointment as such official contractor."
This is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In sub-section (1), page 7, line 59, to delete the words "prescribed standard of quality" and substitute the words "quality which such official contractor stated in his application for appointment that he was willing to supply".
This is a drafting amendment. It is not now proposed to lay down any standard of quality, but to require the applicant in his application for appointment to state explictly the quality of the commodity he proposes to supply, and to embody that statement in a contract on appointment as official contractor.
Does that mean that contractors will be tendering for different qualities?
He puts in the quality.
You are putting it now that he is to keep his goods up to the quality he has stated in his application that he is willing to supply, but how does he tender?
There will be a prescribed form.
Then there will still be something prescribed?
Yes.
Then why remove the words "prescribed standard of quality"?
I do not think it is right to do that.
Apparently the standard is now prescribed. Is it proposed to change that?
There will be a prescribed form. He is not asked to state the quality of the article he is supplying, but in the form which will be sent out the quality will be laid down.
Then why delete the words?
The reasonable thing appears to be that there should be some standard specified.
There will be regulations, and that will all be laid down in the regulations.
What particular harm will it do to leave those words in? I know it is not fair to ask the Minister those questions, but can he give us any particular reason why those words are being deleted. It does appear to me that there should be some prescribed standard. I would ask the Minister to withdraw that amendment.
I have to apologise for not knowing the details; I did not get sufficient time. I did not know until this evening that I was going to take the Bill. I am not very clear on that point, but I will deal with it on the Report Stage.
The amendment does not appear reasonable, surely, as Section 20 is not being amended to exclude the prescribing of quality.
I will deal with the matter on the Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In sub-section (1), page 7, to delete all words from the word "and" line 61, to the end of the sub-section.
This amendment is consequential on the deletion of Section 7.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (2), page 8, to delete all words from the word "orders" in line 46 to the end of line 47 and substitute the words "the orders, regulations and special directions made."
This amendment substitutes special directions instead of undertakings which were included in the deleted Section 7. Full provision is made in a later amendment for those special directions.
What is the later amendment?
It is amendment No. 39.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In sub-section (1), line 6, to insert after the word "commodity" the words "other than a commodity of a perishable nature."
On the Second Reading the Minister indicated the commodities which it was suggested would be put on the list, but of course a mere statement by the Minister in the House does not alter the fact that the Bill as it stands empowers the Minister to put anything he likes on that list. It must be obvious that if any commodity of a perishable nature were put on the list it would make matters very difficult. That is the reason why I suggest this amendment. It merely restricts the list, and, as the Minister indicated that he did not intend to put such articles on the list, I do not think there can be any objection to the amendment.
It is considered better to leave it to the discretion of the Minister as to what articles should be put on the list. He will not do an unreasonable thing.
I think this amendment is a very reasonable one and I do not see any reason why the Minister should not accept it.
The Minister will use his discretion.
Is it contemplated that they should be required to estimate what would be ordered in respect of a perishable commodity?
That is the point. It is hard to say whether some articles are perishable or not. You could go so far as to say that every article is perishable to a certain extent, and the Minister ought to be given a discretion in the drawing up of this. You will find that that discretion will be exercised with commonsense. I do not think there is any necessity for the amendment.
The Minister's commonsense may be a slightly perishable commodity.
The Minister will have to face the House and public boards etc., and he is not going to do stupid things.
I am afraid I cannot agree with that. We have seen a lot of stupid things done by various Ministers.
Everybody is learning. I suppose even Fine Gael are learning something too. It is a good job that they have still an open mind.
That is the reason we want to see that the local authorities are safeguarded. We do not want it to be open to the Minister to say that a perishable article should be specified, as it could be under this. I think the amendment is a very reasonable one.
There is an advisory committee which really draws up the list. It is not done by the Minister himself. On that advisory committee there are two representatives of county councils, two of borough councils, a worker's representative and a representative of the employers. That committee advise as to what should be on this list or should not be on it. In that way I think the local authorities are safeguarded.
I am afraid the Minister is giving away his case. I would prefer to have the protection of the Minister, because he is answerable to the House. Now we are throwing it over to people who are not answerable to the House. We must try to preserve whatever rights we have as local authorities, and we are not going to throw away to the Minister, or any group of people who have no responsibility to the House, the right to say that local authorities shall order perishable articles in this way. I do not think it is the intention to specify anything except non-perishable articles, but I do not see why the Minister should be afraid to put that in.
It is not a question of being afraid. It is a matter of interpretation. Suppose that is put in the Bill, a question might be raised in a court as to what is perishable or what is not. The Minister takes responsibility, but he is advised by a committee, of whom the majority are representatives of local authorities. I think it is very well safeguarded there. It is a question of the interpretation of "perishable". I think it would be better to withdraw the amendment.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (3), page 9, lines 37 and 38, to delete the words "and accepted by such official contractor".
That is a drafting amendment.
I do not think this could be called a drafting amendment. It makes a very important change. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but, according to this, the thing starts when the tender has been accepted. I suggest to the Minister that very often errors are found after the contractor has been notified of its acceptance. Genuine errors may be made. The idea of this amendment is that the contractor should be held to the price, even if he had made a genuine mistake. I suggest that that is the meaning of this amendment.
As I told the House, I have not had much time to consider these things, but I am informed that this is only a drafting amendment. I shall have to go into the Deputy's point on the Report Stage as I am not in a position to deal with it now.
I am perfectly satisfied if the Minister will go into it between this and the Report Stage. I think the Minister has realised that it opens up a very wide field.
I have not realised anything. I am making an open confession that I am not prepared to answer in detail. I believe it is only a drafting amendment, but I cannot argue the case now.
I move amendment No. 22:—
To delete sub-section (4).
Might I ask if the Minister is going to accept this amendment?
No.
Then I am afraid we shall have to divide on this. It is a very important matter for local authorities that they shall have some safeguard from being placed in the hands of contractors, because this sub-section proposes to place them completely in the hands of contractors without any redress whatever. This sub-section sets out two things. The first is that a local authority must make an estimate of their requirements and, having made their estimate, if a mistake is made, or something happens which increases or decreases the amount of the commodity required, they can be fleeced by the contractor. In the first place, the contractor can insist on their taking the full amount estimated, whether it is required or not. Secondly, if they require something more than is ordered, the contractor can make a new price for that. That certainly is introducing a new type of principle altogether even into business. If a local authority orders 500 yards of flannel at a fixed price and, at the end of the year, they find that they want 550 yards, the contractor can make a new price for the extra fifty yards, notwithstanding the fact that he is selling more. That is something to which I certainly will not agree.
Local authorities cannot always make a very accurate estimate in the beginning of the year as to their requirements. For instance, you will have the inflow and outflow of patients into hospitals. How are you going to regulate that? Then, for instance, there may be some building to be done and they may have to order certain things. They may find that they cannot go ahead with that, or something may turn up which may prevent its being gone on with at all. Possibly, they might be waiting for the Minister's sanction for some job which they intend to carry out within 12 months and an estimate is made for that. The Minister's sanction may not come in time, or when it does come they may find that the estimate is wrong. In what position will they be then? If they make an over-estimate, they will have to pay for everything ordered, whether it is wanted or not. If they do not make a complete estimate, they will have to pay extra for whatever they want to complete their requirements. That, I think, is most unfair. You must have a certain amount of give and take and not tie down local authorities in this way.
The point about that is that it will only apply to articles in general use, such as tweed and things like that. If a local authority estimate for a certain quantity, and if the people who are tendering know that they will get orders for that quantity, it is believed that the article can be got by the local authority at a lower price. That would enable the manufacturers, during the slack periods of the year, knowing exactly what quantities of goods they are going to sell, to keep their plant going, which might otherwise be idle. In that way it is believed that the local bodies will benefit considerably by a reduction in prices, and where they may want more than they have ordered, I believe that the intention is to fix a maximum of 5 per cent. increase, but the contractor will not be bound to do that. He might find, however, that during the year prices of commodities had gone up, and he might not be able to supply the extra quantity required at the same price — that is, for the raw materials — and that might have a considerable effect on him. It is also believed that, even with the 5 per cent. extra, the benefits the local authorities would get, due to the fact that the order had been made and the estimate supplied to the contractor, would be much more than if this estimate had not been made. As a result of long consultation with experienced people, that is the conclusion that has been come to. As I have said to Deputy Brennan, it is not every article that would be included, but only articles in large quantities and in general use, such as boots, and so on.
Has the Minister any cases of local bodies that have not given their requirements?
I think the case is that when a firm gets a contract, they do not know what orders they will get, and must take a chance on the matter. I am inclined to think that a small manufacturer, certainly, could very well benefit under such a provision as this, because he could not very well afford to go into a contract to supply a lot of local authorities when he would not know what quantities would be required, whereas, if he did know what would be required during the year, he could get down to that proposition and see what he could do in the way of supplying these requirements. In that way, I think it would encourage small manufacturers.
What is to prevent his knowing the requirements?
Well, he is taking a chance.
I am afraid the Minister misunderstands my point. I am not at all opposing this matter of making an estimate. I think it is necessary that there should be an estimate made of what might be required. What I am objecting to is the penalty that is proposed to be inflicted on the local authorities if they do not make an accurate estimate. That is what I am opposing, and I think it is quite reasonable to oppose it. I know that there is a good deal to be said against the possibility of placing the ratepayers, through the local authorities, in the hands of some combine. We all admit that, but we say that we should be saved this thing of putting a penalty on us because we do not make a perfectly accurate estimate of our requirements. I shall certainly oppose that. However, I think the Minister has missed my point. I think we are all agreed that an estimate should be made, and I think that it is only fair that the contracting parties, whether small or big — and particularly the small ones — should have some idea of the amount required of them; but I do say that if you have any faith in local authorities you should accept this amendment. If you do not accept the amendment, it seems to me that your idea is to ride rough-shod over local authorities.
No such thing.
I quite agree with Deputy Brennan's remarks. It seems to me that, in this regard, you are treating the local authorities as a lot of school children. It appears to me that this would lead to gross extravagance, because it will mean that you will either have over-estimation or under-estimation each year. I think it would be absolutely impossible to make an accurate estimate beforehand. There is such a variety of commodities required, and there are so many varying conditions during the year that it would be impossible for local authorities to estimate accurately what their requirements would be during the ensuing year. The Minister says that this has been recommended by various people. Well, I am satisfied that that recommendation came from the official contractors. I have been a member of a local authority for quite a considerable time, and I consider that it is absolutely impossible to carry out this thing in the way in which the Minister thinks it should be carried out. Let us take the position in which, in a normal year, a local authority might require so many picks and shovels — we will take that for the sake of argument — and let us say that, in the middle of the year, they get a grant from the Government: how will they visualise, at the beginning of the financial year, how many picks and shovels they will want? I agree that picks and shovels may not be on the list, and I am only mentioning these articles for the sake of argument, but there are other commodities to which this applies, and I think that this whole thing is absolutely ridiculous, and something that is being shoved down the necks of the local authorities. It certainly is something which no local authority wants. It is Government policy gone mad.
I think there is a further point in this, which Deputy Brennan mentioned but which he did not stress to the full; and that is that, owing to the requirements of making the estimate, it means, in actual fact, that the local authority would have to prepare their estimate six months before the time they would want to put it in — in other words, 18 months previously. I think it is rather too much to expect them to forecast what will happen in the next 18 months. The Minister says that this will only refer to articles in general use, such as certain articles he mentioned, but the Bill itself does not say that. According to the Bill, any article can be put on the list, and the fact that the Minister says now that it only applies to articles in general use is binding on nobody. If the Bill referred only to certain definite articles, then it might be possible to look at this sub-section more leniently, but, as it stands at the moment, I think it would be impossible to work from the point of view of the local authorities.
Let us take the actual practice with regard to mental hospitals and county homes, where they use a certain amount of tea, sugar, clothing, etc. What is the difficulty about leaving things as they are? I quite agree that they should estimate as nearly as possible the amount that would be required, but to put a penalty on them because they do not estimate absolutely accurately is most impracticable.
There was no intention of penalising them at all, but, as I said before, the experience is that by providing this estimate beforehand a lower price can be quoted for certain goods.
We are agreeing to this matter of giving an estimate; it is the penalty that we are opposed to.
Yes; but the contractor will have to get some consideration also.
He is getting it all.
No. I think it is only reasonable that he should be given a chance, and when he gets that estimate he would have a better chance of knowing the requirements.
We agree.
I believe that the local bodies ought to have a fair idea of how much they would require, and then they are not compelled to order in a particular year; they can wait till the next financial year. The contractor is not compelled to get the extra money.
He must get it by this section.
It is not mandatory. He need not take it if he does not like.
Yes, I agree.
They can go to the contractor and say: "We will give you an order for so many articles if you give them to us at the same price, but if not we will wait for the new year and give an order then." If he is willing to give these articles at the old price, well and good, and in any case the Department is satisfied that the net result of this system—and, after all, if the contractor does not believe he is going to be stuck, he will do what he can — will be to get a reduction in price which otherwise would not be got. The contractor is not compelled to take the extra money. He need not do so, and if he is able to do it, without loss to himself——
The Minister is a very innocent man.
I am not a very innocent man. I have gone into this section pretty thoroughly, and I do not see that there is any point in the objection. I thought, at the beginning, that any business man would be glad to get sale for more goods, but the point is that something may have happened during the year which may make the price at which he tendered unprofitable.
And something may have happened the other people, but they have to put up with it.
They have a cut price, on the understanding that a certain quantity only is going to be ordered. If something happens during the year which makes it unprofitable for the contractor to supply the articles at that price, it is only fair, if he has given a special cut, that he should be in a position to say:—"I contracted to supply a certain amount, but costs have risen on me during the year, and I am entitled to the extra charge." The local authority has the alternative of waiting until the next financial year.
Perhaps they cannot.
I put it to Deputy Brennan that they will have gained in the meantime through the cut price. This estimate method will not work unless this is agreed to.
You have no faith in local authorities. You believe that they are going to act dishonestly unless you penalise them.
It is not a question of dishonesty. It is a question of their trying to estimate as exactly as they can, in order that they may get the benefit of a reduced price, due to the giving of a firm order. The 5 per cent. extra which he may be allowed to charge, it is believed, would be only about the price at which they would get their goods, if there was not this estimate system.
What about the other side? The contractor has it both ways. The estimate may be made and presented to the Minister, who, I presume, will send it to the contractor, or follow whatever the procedure is. A public authority during the year may find it necessary to take only 60 per cent. of that, but they must take the whole lot. If they under-estimate and require more, he is entitled, even with the Minister's approval, to charge 5 per cent. more. Surely that is very unfair to a local authority?
Let me put a question to the Minister. Suppose the Minister were satisfied that a local authority made the best effort they possibly could to give a fair estimate of their requirements, and suppose something occurs, as he says may occur in the case of a contractor, and they find they want more — because they are getting more patients into the hospital than they estimated for — does he think they should be penalised, having made every effort to give a fair estimate? There is another point. Everything is in favour of the contractor in this.
Except the cut price.
Wait now. Let us examine that cut price. I admit that the cut price was a Second Reading matter. I raised it on the Second Reading, and I am going to raise it now for the benefit of the Minister. I am not at all convinced that there is going to be much of a cut price in this matter. I have my doubts about the whole Bill, because what the Government is attempting at the present, and what was behind the original combined purchasing scheme, is to keep out local combines in tendering. Now what we have done is to cut out all the local people and tighten the matter up into possibly a few contractors, who can make a much tighter combine and may raise prices considerably. The Minister did promise, on Second Reading, that he would see that all the prices were reasonable in comparison with outside prices, but I am really afraid of the whole Bill, and I think we ought at least to have the protection which the deletion of that sub-section would give.
Has any instance been given to the Minister where a local authority did not estimate within its requirements? The implication of the clause is that they do not so estimate.
I am informed that they never give an estimate at all.
That is right; they are never asked for it. We agree to the estimate but not to the penalty.
The other people have to be considered, too. Where all the stuff is not required, it will be stuff which is in general use, and it can be put in store for use, if required, next year, so that less will be required next year.
Take any institution you care to mention. If I am a contractor, prepared to tender for the supply of a given article or articles, the first thing I will ask the responsible man in that institution is what his requirements of this article will be. There is a fairly decent estimate of what is required of all the articles.
The Minister apparently is very concerned about the fact that the price may rise during the period of the contract, and that, therefore, the contractor should have some safeguard. Has it ever occurred to him that the price may fall? If a local authority requires an excess, and the price of raw materials has fallen, according to the Bill, the contractor may charge, not as the Minister mentions, 5 per cent., but a prescribed percentage which may be anything. The figure 5 per cent. is not mentioned in the Bill.
That is the intention.
Yet the price may have fallen during the period of the contract. A local authority requires more of a particular article, and under the terms of the Bill the contractor may charge more, although his costs have fallen in the meantime.
On that I would say, that if the price of raw materials falls, the contractor will be able to make a greater profit than he was making on the other stuff, and, consequently, he will say: "I will sell it to you at the contract price." The figure of 5 per cent. is not mentioned, but it is the intention to fix 5 per cent., and I think that Deputy Benson's point merely illustrates that. It does not justify the amendment.
This enables him to get a local authority on his list, and then to fleece them.
It does not. The Minister will carry out his undertaking to see that that will not happen.
The Minister should display a little more confidence in the local authorities.
It is not a question of showing confidence in the local authorities, but a question of trying to help local authorities to get articles cheaper. There has been no estimate up to this and, after mature consideration, it has been decided that the local authorities should make this estimate.
Were the Advisory Committee consulted about the Bill, or about this clause?
The purpose of my remarks was merely to indicate that there was no reason why a contractor should not work on the well-known principle of the swings and the roundabouts. In one year, raw materials may rise, and the next year they may fall in price, and I can see no justification for his being entitled to charge an extra percentage for over-buying on top of the regular contract.
On the principle of the estimate, I think there is general agreement, but when the Minister refers to the cut-price system, it is to be assumed that this policy is designed to give a manufacturer an opportunity of increasing his production and giving employment. I think the Minister will agree, however, that in the case of various contracts, where a low price is sought, it is the experience of local authorities that, in many cases, they turn out failures. Will the Minister see that contractors put on this list who get estimates supplied to them in bulk, as they will under the Bill, are capable of producing the goods, because I know an industry in the country to-day which is not able to supply the orders being given to it, and yet there is a prohibitive tariff on the import of the articles produced by it.
That will be provided for.
The Minister appeared to be under the impression that no articles would be on the list except articles in general use.
That is so.
Where do we find that? The Bill is following the old Combined Purchasing Bill. We had an instance in Roscommon last year where a surgical appliance—known, I think, as a Jansen nail for a man's hip — was required, and the Local Government Department said that it must be ordered through the combined purchasing system. The result was that the doctor had to pay for it out of his own pocket. That appliance is something that is not in general use. The whole thing is really ridiculous. The impression the Minister created on me is that the Minister and the Local Government Department are tied up to the people who will eventually become official contractors. It is striking me that the manufacturer——
Some particular manufacturer?
The number of manufacturers in this country is few and it is very easy for them to combine. Nevertheless, we are waiving that, but the Minister wants to put us into this position that if we do not estimate exactly what we require——
The contractors are bossing the local authorities purely and completely.
What is expected will be the result if a local authority underestimates? I think, a moment ago, the Minister said that the contractor was entitled to charge an increased price but the local authority need not order where they have underestimated. What is it expected will happen if they do not want to pay the increased percentage?
They will not order.
They will wait until next year. If the other situation arises, then the official contractor is entitled to dump his stuff on the local authority?
They will have got the benefit of the reduced price as a result of the firm order given to the contractor.
We are granting you that.
The estimate is no good to the people unless they are sure they are going to get the orders.
But they are going to get more than they order.
The net result will mean better prices for the local authority.
If a local authority happens to underestimate it is going to wait until the next year?
The Minister is placing the local authorities entirely in the hands of the contractors.
The Minister has no faith in the efficiency or honesty of the local authority.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In sub-section (5), page 10, to delete all words from the word "then" line 28, to the word "thereupon", line 32.
In the sub-section as introduced it was provided that in the case of a local authority who fails to supply any estimate and then orders a supply the Minister might apply the sub-section. On further consideration, the intervention of the Minister is not deemed necessary.
So that we have no safeguard at all?
This is in the case of a local body who will not estimate. If they will not put in an estimate, they are not entitled to the benefits that other local authorities who do put in an estimate would get. It is to compel the local authorities to make an estimate of what they require during the year in order, as I said on the last amendment, that they may get the benefit of the reduction in price which it is hoped to get from the contractors when they know what they are to deliver within the year.
Any little protection the Minister was going to afford is being taken away by this amendment.
Deputy Brennan says he is in favour of the estimate. There may not be any county council that will not make an estimate but, if there is, I do not see why they should get any special consideration. I do not think there will be one in the country but, in case there might be, the amendment is being put in.
I think the Minister, and not one of these contractors should be appointed.
Deputies know very well that if the contractor knows what the orders are going to be he will be able to give a reduced price. There is no question of that at all. It is the local bodies that are going to profit.
The effect of this is that it comes into operation automatically instead of being if the Minister thinks proper?
Yes.
That is a big difference. It was at the discretion of the Minister; now it is automatic.
It is not considered necessary now.
According to that, anything the contractor does is right.
I am sorry that the Minister for Local Government is not here. Why would the Minister for Local Government think that it would be unnecessary for him, superfluous for him, and that he ought not do it, to give notice to the local authority that he was going to apply this sub-section and was going to impose this contractor upon them? Why does he think he ought not do that? Is he now going to allow the contractor to fleece the local authorities as he likes?
They will all be informed that they have got to make an estimate.
I cannot see any reason for the amendment. This is a very important matter. I propose to divide the House on it.
The Minister for Local Government gave himself the right, if a case was made to him, not to apply the sub-section. The Minister said a while ago that he had no faith in local authorities, either in their honesty or efficiency.
No.
Apparently now he has no faith in himself when he will not give himself the power to consider a case that might be put up to him or to apply, or not to apply, the sub-section as he thinks wise.
It is intended to apply to each local authority which does not send in an estimate. If they do not send in an estimate, they will have to take the consequences. It is then left to the contractor to charge them the extra price.
That would still obtain if these words were left in. Why do you want to take them out?
Is the word "thereupon" still left in the section? It is not deleted, it appears to me. You delete all the words from the word "then" to "thereupon," but the word "thereupon" is left in.
Both "then" and "thereupon" are out.
They are not out yet.
It is proposed to take them out?
It is proposed to take both "then" and "thereupon" out.
Does the Minister want to amend the amendment now or on the Report Stage?
I do not want to amend the amendment at all.
Are you persisting in the amendment?
Yes.
You are going to give the contractor the right to fleece local authorities at a new price.
That is not so. There is going to be a limit of an extra 5 per cent. As I pointed out before, there is going to be a reduction in the ordinary price arising from the fact that a firm order is being given to the contractor. Where does the fleecing come in?
If these words were left in, the Minister would have some say in determining whether the thing was right or wrong. We must assume that the local authority would have the sympathy of the Minister in most cases if these words were left in. We are now to be left entirely in the hands of the contractor.
The section, when amended, will read:—
Where a local authority fails to submit to the Minister an estimate ... and the Minister appoints under this Act one official contractor ... such official contractor shall ... be entitled to charge and to be paid by such local authority for all supplies of such commodity ordered and taken from him by such local authority during the said period to which such requisition related a price exceeding the standard price by the prescribed percentage.
If that is not fleecing the local authority, I do not know what it is. If there was something to say that the local authority would take the stuff at the quoted price, there would be some sense in it, but here we have the Minister, who reserved to himself the privilege to apply or not to apply the sub-section, now doing away with that privilege and throwing the local authority right into the arms of the contractor.
If every local authority makes this estimate, there will be a bigger order going to the contractor. He charges a lower price because he knows the quantity of stuff which he has to supply. It is in order to see that each local authority will submit an estimate that this provision is being put in.
We are merely asking the Minister to retain the privilege of applying or not applying the sub-section as he thinks fit.
Is there any doubt that if the Minister exercised the privilege, say in the case of County Roscommon, of exempting County Roscommon from the sub-section, if the Roscommon County Council had not made an estimate, the Minister would be accused by Deputy Dillon of having been influenced by the Minister for Lands in getting County Roscommon exempted? I am sure he would. We want to make sure that every local body in the county which purchases articles on the list will make this estimate, and thereby get these goods at the reduced price at which they will always get them when they are bought in large quantities. That is as plain as a pikestaff, and I cannot see what objections Deputies have to it.
Is there anything in the section to secure that the goods will be got at the appropriate time that the local authority needs them, which is the most important thing? Often they have to wait months for these things.
There is power to remove the contractors if necessary.
I do not understand the finances of this at all. The section seeks to make provision for a case where a local authority fails to submit an estimate. This Bill, when it becomes law, will become known to the local authority, and the contractor will know that it does not matter whether the local authority fails to submit an estimate, as once he is appointed contractor he will be contractor to the whole lot. Why should he be allowed to put up his price because a local authority fails to submit an estimate? He will have to supply the same amount of goods whether they estimate or not. Why do you give that contractor 5 per cent. additional against one county council because they do not put in an estimate?
The point is that if the contractor does not get an estimate, he will not know what orders he is likely to receive.
He will know that he is going to be made contractor to the whole lot.
He will not know the quantity of goods that is likely to be ordered.
He will have some knowledge from previous years. Suppose he did not know. Suppose some local authority wants 10,000 yards of cloth and it has not put in an estimate. The contractor has tendered on the basis of supplying some quantity less these 10,000 yards. According to the Minister, because he had not got the estimate for these 10,000 yards, his contract price will be higher. He then supplies these 10,000 yards when the stuff is ordered and he is to be allowed to charge that higher price plus five per cent. That appears to me to be lunacy.
It does not appear to me to be lunacy.
Does it not always follow that the bigger the order the smaller the price?
Yes.
Then he stands to gain by getting the additional order.
Deputies are deliberately blinding themselves. Everybody knows that there is a possibility that during the course of the year the cost of manufacture of an article for which a contractor may have tendered may rise.
Suppose it falls.
Suppose it falls. He is an ordinary business man and a public authority comes to him and says: "We want more of the commodity than we thought. If you are prepared to give it to us at the contract price, we will give you the order now. If you are not, we will wait until the end of the year." If it has cost him less to produce than what he thought, he is going to make a bigger profit and therefore, he will not ask for any more. On the other hand, the public authority may wait until next year and if the cost of manufacture has fallen during the year, some other contractor may come along and may cut him out altogether. There is nothing in favour of the contractor at all in the section. It is in favour of the local authority.
Look at the section.
The Minister has charged Opposition Deputies with deliberately blinding themselves. If you were here when the last amendment was being put, you would see that the Fianna Fáil Deputies were so deaf and dumb that they did not know whether they were to say either "Tá" or "Níl".
They answered in the right way.
On the section, sub-section (2), paragraph (a) refers to the prescribed officer of the local authority. I should be glad to know from the Minister why it is suggested that the officer should be prescribed by the Minister. Paragraph (b) of sub-section (4) refers to the prescribed percentage. The Minister, in the course of his remarks, referred to a percentage of five, but there is nothing in the Bill about 5 per cent. If it is intended that it should be 5 per cent., is there any reason why that is not inserted in the Bill? At the moment there is nothing to prevent 200 per cent. or 300 per cent. being inserted.
It might be 2½ per cent.
Not more?
It might be more, but it will not be 100 per cent. It will be such a percentage as the Minister is satisfied will be reasonable to an officer of his Department that he will appoint.
I move amendment No. 25:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing sub-section of this section, it shall be lawful for a local authority, and for the officers and officials of a local authority, to purchase and take a supply of a particular commodity from a person other than an official contractor if, and whenever, such commodity is taken and purchased from such person at a price which is more favourable to the local authority than the price at which such commodity can be obtained at the time such commodity is purchased from an official contractor.
The purpose of this amendment is to enable the local authority to purchase goods from a non-official contractor if his price is lower than the list price of the official contractor. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in that. It would be a peculiar thing for a manufacturer to be in conflict with a body to which he supplies goods. It has been suggested that in the past local traders formed rings in order to obtain certain prices. I am of opinion that contractors into whose hands we will now be placed through the medium of this Bill would be in a better position to form rings than local shopkeepers, because the number of contractors making goods to be supplied to local authorities is limited. Because of that fact, it would be easy for them to meet and set down prices at which they would supply these goods. I submit that traders within the jurisdiction of local authorities should be given the opportunity to supply goods to authorities towards which they pay rates. I also believe that there would be better competition. Traders and shopkeepers in provincial towns have had a very bad time recently. Owing to the effects of the economic war it is generally known, in consequence of farmers not being able, to a great extent, to meet their liabilities, that the business people in these towns have had a bad time. If a local trader can supply goods cheaper than a contractor on the official list, local authorities should be permitted to give preference locally. The existing arrangement which the Bill is extending is far from satisfactory.
I have had complaints continually that the official contractors are not able to supply certain commodities within a reasonable time, and that that has caused great inconvenience. It was brought to my notice that Grangegorman Mental Hospital had to purchase margarine at 46/- per cwt. from a non-official contractor, while the stated price of the official contractor was 52/-:—
"At a meeting of the Visiting Committee of Grangegorman Mental Hospital held on November 10th, 1938, it was reported that of 24 packets of linen tape ordered from the official contractor on July 25th, only eight packets had been delivered, i.e., after a lapse of three and a half months; an order for kettles and saucepans issued on May 19th had not been executed six months afterwards. The contracting firm wrote to the Committee on the 31st October that ‘there are many orders outstanding for other institutions also'."
I submit to the Minister that if that is the kind of treatment that is going to be meted out to various local authorities by contractors being put on the list, there should be some elasticity in the application of the Bill. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. Local people who pay rates, and who contribute to the revenue of local authorities, are entitled to be allowed to compete when goods are required. I do not think there is anything unreasonable about that request. Local traders are not in the position to form rings but, as very few firms are engaged in the manufacture of articles supplied to local authorities, they are in a far better position to create rings and, in my opinion, in the near future we will have such rings.
I cannot agree to accept the amendment. To do so would mean that contractors who had contracted for the whole country, for the profitable and the unprofitable portions, might have to deliver goods at distant places at great expense. They might also be in the position that when their prices for certain articles were known to everyone, other contractors might come along and pick the cream of the orders. Take the position in Dublin. Contractors might say that they would supply the Dublin institutions at the list prices, and could afford to do it, but that they would not undertake to do that in Donegal, Kerry, and other parts. That would mean that a contract might be taken on the understanding that the contractor was to get what was estimated, and he could quote a price on that.
That is not the case I am making. I am speaking of local contractors supplying local authorities.
A contract could be entered into if it would be profitable. Take the position of a Wexford contractor who would not undertake to supply Donegal at the same price as Wexford. The same would apply in other places. A big order is going to result in a reduction.
Who would supply Donegal in such a case as you are thinking of?
The contractor who had entered into a contract to supply all the public bodies with particular commodities. He takes the contract for Donegal and Kerry as well as Dublin. I suppose he says, "In Dublin I will make much more profit than in Donegal or Kerry." He takes that into consideration in arriving at his price. If somebody in Dublin is prepared to come along, knowing the price at which this contractor is prepared to supply the goods, and quote a lower price at which he is prepared to supply in Dublin or Wexford, then, of course, the whole thing would fall to the ground as useless, and we would not get the benefits of the reduced prices which we hope to get.
I take it that one of the benefits of this Bill is that Dublin is paying for the reduced price of the rest of the country.
I take it that the Deputy would want to drop this combined purchasing altogether because of the rates in Dublin. If you did not get this system operating, you would not get the benefit of the reduced prices that you are getting now.
Not yet.
I believe the Deputy thinks that if you had everybody competing you would have reduced prices. Deputy Brennan believes that we are getting reduced prices. The result of the Act so far has been to get the goods supplied at reduced prices.
But is not Deputy Benson's point the correct one—that Dublin is paying for the reduced prices throughout the country?
It may be; I do not know.
But is it not clear?
I say this: that all the local bodies are getting goods at a cheaper price. One particular place may have to pay more than the contract price, but I doubt if they would get the goods at that price if we had not this system in operation. I believe in that case there would be a different state of affairs, and a lot of the industries that have been built up as a result of this system would not be there at all. Deputy Dillon would not be dissatisfied with that.
The Minister suggests that by virtue of the scheme in operation there is a saving. Now here is a list from the Grangegorman Mental Hospital. It is for the period April, 1936, to March, 1937:—"No. 1 XX Tallow Crown soap: contract price, £19 per ton; Local Government list, £24 per ton. brown scouring soap: contract price, £14 per ton; Local Government list, £21 per ton. October, 1938, to March, 1939 — Margarine (vegetable): contract price, 46/- per cwt.; Local Government list, 53/- per cwt. Attendants' collars: contract price, 4/11 per doz.; combined purchasing list, 7/6. Nurses' collars: contract price, 5/4 per doz.; combined purchasing list, 8/3 per doz. Nurses' cuffs: contract price, 5/4 per doz.; combined purchasing list, 9/11 per doz." That is the benefit which is accruing in Dublin to the local rates from the present system.
Is not that fleecing the public?
I cannot be expected to deal with this; nobody could without having examined all these items very fully. There is such a thing as quality, and when the price is low at which a contractor is prepared to supply the whole country with a certain commodity, that has to be taken into account. I think it is unfair for a contractor to come along with the knowledge of the price that a particular firm is prepared to supply, and with that knowledge in his possession to get barely under that figure.
Is not the list that Deputy Benson has read out rather a staggering one?
I do not know whether it is correct or not.
I am sure the Minister hardly believes it.
I am sure Deputy Benson would not mislead me, but, as I have said, there is a question of quality.
But the Minister can see that there is quoted in several cases 50 per cent. extra.
How do I know what the standard is? Is Deputy Benson able to tell me now that these are of comparable quality?
Yes.
I cannot accept that. Even if it were so there is the point I made already which everybody knows is correct. This thing can be made unfair. I would like if Deputy Benson would give us the particulars of this case and we would have them inquired into.
Would the Minister mind explaining this to me? Under this new system contractors are to be invited through the provinces to supply the whole country with a Government commodity. Is it or is it not true that most of the commodities produced in this country are produced by a very small ring? Suppose the ring consults its members and they agree that there will be no competition, but that they will put in a common price, will the contract be divided up amongst several members of the ring or will it be given to one chosen member of the ring? If it is intended to divide up the contract amongst several individual members of the ring how is the quantity contract to benefit the contractor or enable him to quote a cheaper price? If they divide the contract into five equal parts are we not back to the position at which we were before these so-called advantages were introduced? Would the Minister riddle that?
Two weeks ago I raised, with the Minister for Agriculture, a question in this House regarding the effect of the quota tariff on certain quotas of imported fish, as a result of which a certain local authority in my area was compelled to purchase fish at an increase of 100 per cent. They were compelled to look for tenders from Irish firms which were in a position to supply the fish. They made application to the fish merchants concerned and every one of them quoted the figure of 7d per lb., which was exactly 100 per cent. more than the price previously paid to the old contractor who was cut off as a result of the imposition of the quota order brought in by the Minister for Agriculture. Here we have a small ring operating to impose an increased price of 100 per cent. on the ratepayers.
As far as we are concerned there are 2,164 items supplied and there are in all 230 contractors. There is not much sign of a ring there. But if the Minister sees it he will have his eyes open and he will not allow a ring to operate. If necessary, he will allow people outside the country to come in and break down the ring. All this will be provided for in the regulations to be drawn up and they have to be laid on the Table here.
Everything is not in the Bill?
Does Deputy Corish want everything in the Bill? The Deputy should know that before the regulations are put into force they will be presented here to the House. I want again to remind the House that the Advisory Committee, composed of two representatives of the county councils, two of the county boroughs, together with employers and workers' representatives do advise the Minister as to what contract ought to be accepted. The committee may advise that no contract be accepted and, if they do, no contract will be accepted.
Does the Minister mean that their advice is taken?
Almost always.
What happens then?
The local authorities can buy where they like.
I might refer the Minister to the official report of a case I brought before the Minister for Agriculture. In that case he refused to tackle the fish ring who had put their heads together. That meant an increased charge on the Portlaoighise Hospital of £182 a year.
If the Minister was satisfied that there was no ring and that the prices were right? He has to stand over that and answer for it here. The fact is that the Minister will look into these matters. He has to satisfy himself that the ring is not in operation to keep prices up. He has got to be satisfied on that.
100 per cent. extra is a fairly hefty increase.
It all depends. It may be a case where the stuff is dumped in here from Japan.
Fish from Japan!
There is no use in Deputy Dillon being too clever. He spoke of showmen going to America. I do not know how he was kept from going.
I referred to Barnum and Baily's Circus.
The Deputy has certainly lost his chance. He would have made a first-rate showman or comedian. I was not referring to fish, but even fish could be dumped at a price at which it would not pay to capture them so as to destroy the fishing industry of this country. These things have happened. A 50 per cent., 100 per cent., or 200 per cent. increase might not have meant a big increase in price. It might have meant only an economic price. If I were dealing with a case of dumping, I would not consider an increase of 100 per cent. or 200 per cent. too great.
Now the cat is coming out of the bag.
I keep no cat in the bag. Deputy Davin will agree that, in the case of certain commodities which were being dumped, 100 per cent. increase might give only a fair price. I am not speaking about this particular case. If the Minister has gone into the matter, I know Dr. Ryan so well that if he is prepared to accept the price fixed as fair I should be satisfied. I know he would give every consideration to it.
It was quite clear that, when Portlaoighise Mental Hospital were compelled to look for tenders at home and every one of the fish merchants quoted 7d., instead of 3½d., there was a ring.
If the Minister is satisfied that there is a ring, he will not allow it to continue.
Here is a case with which the Minister can deal forthwith and give us an undertaking. The argument on which this Bill is founded is that it is designed to reduce the cost of commodities to local authorities by providing the producers thereof with an opportunity to produce a large volume of their product for the supply of the local authorities, thereby reducing overhead costs and enabling them to quote lower prices. When this Bill comes into operation, the local authorities will want flour. Rank, Odlum and the Dublin millers constitute the flour ring. The boys will have their usual weekly meeting, and they will agree on the measure of plunder they intend to do in that particular week on the populace of this country. They will then divide the contract up amongst the five plunderers and quote the same price. The Minister will proceed to allocate the contract. What is he going to do? Is he going to give Rank a part, Odlum a part, and the Dublin group a part, or is he going to give the whole contract to one of them? If he gives the whole contract to one of them, there is no competition because they have all quoted the same price. Suppose he divides the contract up into five parts and gives a part to each, how is he increasing the output of any one of them? Will not the output be exactly the same as it was before? How will they then be in a position to make any reduction in price as a result of reduced overheads, due to increased output? How is the Minister going to deal with that?
Flour will not be on the list.
Has it been on the list?
I do not think so.
Will the Minister give an undertaking that, in any case where we can prove a ring is operating in the industry, he will not put that commodity on the list?
Who will prove that? I am giving an undertaking that where the Minister is satisfied that a ring is in operation to keep up an unfair price he will not allow it.
The whole country knows about flour.
Can the Minister intervene before the end of the year?
He can in respect of the articles on the list. I have not the list, but I understand that flour is not on it. If the Minister is satisfied that an attempt is being made to form rings, to keep up prices, he will not allow it.
He will not put the article on the list?
If the article is on the list he will take it off. He has an advisory committee to go into all these things, and the Minister will be under fire all the time. He has got to watch all these things and he will watch them. He will not allow rings to undo the work he will have done here.
Who accepts the tenders?
The Minister accepts them on the advice of the advisory committee.
Has the Minister ever been known to act contrary to the wishes of the advisory committee?
I understand that on one occasion he did.
You told us that we were perfectly safe in the hands of the advisory committee.
If the Minister finds there is a ring, he will break it.
Is there no flour-milling ring?
I did not say that. I said flour was not on the list.
Before announcing the figures, I wish to state that the Minister made a mistake and passed first through the wrong Lobby where his vote was not recorded.
The right Lobby.
The wrong Lobby, in the Minister's opinion. I desire to inform the House that his vote has been recorded in the Lobby into which he went secondly and in which he desired to vote.
Agreed.
He said that I led him in.
I am now informed that two Ministers so erred. I take it the correction in both cases is not objected to.
Agreed.
I move amendment No. 26:—
To delete sub-section (3).
It seems to me very unfair to a local officer that he should be penalised so heavily as is suggested in this sub-section, because not only will he be liable to a surcharge should he buy outside the list, but in addition to that he is liable to a fine not exceeding £20. The only reason I can think of for the insertion of that penalty of £20 is that the Minister realises he is not liable to buy outside the local government list unless he can buy cheaper, and that, therefore, there would be no surcharge. At the same time it does seem to me a very severe penalty, and I would ask the Minister to consider whether it should not be cut out.
I would also appeal to the Minister on this matter. A surcharge should be quite sufficient. It is something entirely new in local government that an officer should be charged £20 in a case like that. One cannot say it is ultra vires, but it is something that never occurs in the application of any other local government law as far as I know. I think the latter portion of it at least ought to be deleted.
It is considered that this is necessary in order to enforce the section. There might not be a surcharge. He might buy at a lower price. What we were discussing on the last section might arise; it might be evaded by buying at a lower price.
That is not the point. The suggestion is that, say, the clerk of the council should be brought before the court because he does certain things. To my mind the liability to a surcharge will be quite sufficient. We ought to have some confidence in our officers. The application of a surcharge, in my opinion, would be quite sufficient. On the Report Stage, would the Minister consider deleting the portion in regard to the £20?
I do not see why it should arise at all. This is the law. Why should it be necessary to break it?
What is the law?
It is going to be the law when this is passed.
That is what we are arguing against.
When people break the law they are brought before the court. If a man is driving on the wrong side of the road or without a light he is brought before the court. The same occurs with regard to other breaches of the law. That is the only way to deal with them.
Except that there is not a double penalty.
Where is the double penalty?
The surcharge.
But suppose he buys cheaper?
You can fine him £20.
For getting it cheaper.
We already dealt with this on the last section — that is not to allow certain people to get the cream of those contracts; to get the advantage of the local sale when they are not prepared to enter into a contract to supply the whole country. It is to enforce that that we are insisting that a penalty should be there.
Who proceeds against this man, the contractor or the Minister?
The Minister.
As a common informer?
Whatever the procedure is.
If he proceeds against him as a common informer, cannot any contractor so proceed against him?
Section 23 lays down that "A prosecution for an offence under any section of this Act may be brought at the suit of the Minister."
It gives the Minister power to proceed, but may not anybody else proceed?
It is bad enough that the Minister can take proceedings, but it is still worse if the contractor has power also.
The Minister only will proceed against him.
Let us be clear on this. Suppose in present circumstances the secretary——
I will deal with this matter again on the Report Stage.
Very well.
I will consider the matter, and will be in a better position to deal with it on the Report Stage.
The point is that heretofore a local officer might render himself liable to surcharge in an emergency. Representations could then be made to the Minister and the matter could be settled. Now a pestilential contractor, acting as a common informer, might drag the secretary of the county council before the court, and secure a technical conviction. That is the matter to be looked into.
There is just one other point which I should like to mention. There is an amendment later on in the name of Deputy Brennan which deals with the purchasing of surgical or medical requirements. If that amendment were accepted, then I do not consider that this particular sub-section would be quite as bad as it would be if that were not accepted. It might be that an officer of a local authority, in an emergency, would have to purchase something outside the list.
That will be dealt with.
That man would be liable to a surcharge, and to a fine of £20, although he might perhaps have saved a life.
Of course that will not happen.
Is the Minister going to review it before the Report Stage with a view to deleting the £20?
I am admitting again, as I did earlier, that I am not familiar with this particular section. Consequently, I will consider the matter further, but I may delete that or I may not. I am not making any commitments, but I will deal with the matter further on the Report Stage. Perhaps Deputy Benson would withdraw the amendment, and bring it in again on the Report Stage if necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
On the section: the first sub-section provides that dealings shall only take place with persons on the list-official contractors. Again, on the question of the goods that are to be on this list, we do not know what they are. We have the Minister's statement that they will be goods in general use, which is a very wide term. It is possible that certain of them may be mechanical goods. We do not know. Let us suppose that the original supplier of those mechanical goods is not on the list. Most mechanical goods bear a guarantee only on condition that the spare parts supplied by that manufacturer are used. If that manufacturer is not on the list, under this section it is impossible to buy those parts. They have to be bought from somebody else.
There is also another point which I should like the Minister to clear up. It is in regard to sub-section (2) paragraph (c), which says:
such person shall not be entitled to recover from such local authority any money for or on account of any of such commodity so ordered and taken from him if such local authority shows that when such person supplied such commodity to such local authority he had notice and knew that such ordering and taking was a contravention of sub-section (1) of this section;
Can the Minister tell me how the local authority is to show that?
On the question of the spare parts, all those things will be taken into consideration before the contractor is appointed. All those things will be gone into. The Minister — I know that Deputy McGilligan will not believe this — is not going to do stupid things and set himself against the whole country.
I do not like to be singled out for honourable mention; the whole House disbelieves it.
All those things will be gone into, and anything which is not provided for will be recovered. It is not going to be so cast iron as all that. On the point as to whether or not a person was aware that there was a particular official contractor, the Minister will have to be satisfied, before he prosecutes, that the person did know there was such a contractor. He would have to be satisfied that the person was aware of that fact.
How is the local authority to show that? The point is that the local authority has to show what somebody else had or had not notice of. How is the local authority to do that? I submit that it is impossible for the local authority to comply with that condition.
It is the Minister's job to see that the people who can supply all those things are appointed. The local authority, if it finds that some article required is not provided for, can take that matter up, and it will be suitably dealt with.
I am afraid the Minister has not grasped the point. The point is that the person shall not be entitled to recover from the local authority if the local authority can show that the person had notice and knew of something. I cannot see how a local authority is capable of knowing what another person had notice of and knew. Sometimes they do not even know what they themselves had notice of, not to speak of what other people had notice of.
Will the Deputy look at paragraph (b) of sub-section (2): "The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, serve by post on such local authority and on such person notice that the ordering and taking of any quantity of such commodity by such local authority from such person is a contravention of sub-section (1) of this section."
How is the local authority to show that the person knows?
If he did not get the notice from the Local Government Department it would be a good defence.
If he did not?
Or the local authority did not.
It is not a question of the local authority getting notice. They have to show that the person has received the notice and knows.
That will be easily managed. I cannot see any difficulty there.
Who is to decide that they have shown that?
I dare say it will be the Local Government auditor.
It will be too late then.
Or a court, if a man is prosecuted.
Is it a court?
If there is a prosecution, it will be a court. If it is a question of audit, it will be the auditor.
Is it after the auditor has been there that the Minister will decide to take action?
When it becomes known. I suppose that is the way it will become known.
Is this an insinuation that a local authority will take advantage of someone, and order stuff from someone who is not on the official list, and afterwards try to show that this man was aware that he was not entitled to supply, and therefore they need not pay him? Is not that the interpretation of the sub-section — that they will evade payment because they are able to show that he is not on the official list?
There is no insinuation. There is an effort to see that the system will work. There must be some way of enforcing it and that is the one proposed.
Amendment No. 27 is out of order.
I move amendment No. 28:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
An officer of a local authority, on the requisition of the surgeon or doctor in charge of an hospital (or his substitute for the time being) may order any requirement, surgical or medical, urgently needed, from persons other than the official contractors, provided such requirement cannot be supplied by the official contractors or when ordering through official contractors would mean delay, with consequent danger to human life or limb.
The amendment speaks for itself. There was a case brought very acutely to my notice last year in the local hospital in Roscommon, where a certain surgical appliance was required. A communication was sent to the Local Government Department and they stated that it must be got through the combined purchasing scheme. Eventually, in order to save somebody's life or limb, the doctor had to purchase it out of his own pocket. There is no use in the Minister's saying, as was said on the Second Reading, that the consent of the Department is easily obtained for any purchases which have to be made outside the Act. Possibly the Minister will say that Section 15, as it stands, deals with that. But Section 15 only deals with it when the Minister thinks it ought to be dealt with. I want it to be automatic, so that a purchase can be made to save a life or a limb, and that is all. I have no other object. There ought not to be any occasion to apply to the Department for permission to buy any such requirement. Surely we can trust our surgeons, doctors, matrons and other officials by tying them down to the words I have there, "surgical requirements" for the purpose of saving a life or a limb.
I support the amendment. I think it would be very unnatural if the Minister were not to accept the amendment. It is certainly laid down definitely that a case must be made after the article has been purchased. I submit that it would be only natural that the amendment should be accepted and very unnatural that it should be rejected.
I think this matter can be settled better by regulation. All the points which have been made will be considered in the making of the regulations.
This is breaking every regulation which the Local Government Department have.
The regulations may not meet every case, but if they do not, they will have to be altered. If an emergency of that kind arises, there will not be any question of people being surcharged.
The question has arisen very definitely.
I say that a thing of that kind is not likely to arise again, because there are things which, by experience, have become known and they will be provided for.
This has arisen in more cases than the Roscommon case, where doctors had to pay for a requirement in order to save life.
Under what paragraph of Section 20 are regulations to be made covering this?
It is under Section 15.
That is not the regulations section. That deals with exemptions, which is a different matter. I thought the Minister said regulations.
Does the Minister think that if the amendment is accepted there would be any abuses? I was very careful in wording it, but if the Minister, or his advisers, think it ought to be worded in some other way, I am satisfied. I am not tied to any wording, provided the officers of the local authority can provide the necessary requirements in order to save a life or a limb.
It is possible that the Deputy's amendment even might not cover all the cases that might arise. The representations which have been made, and the experience which has been gained from what has happened in the past will be taken into consideration when the regulations are being drawn up. Even when we pass laws here we often have to amend them. It is quite possible that in this case Deputy Brennan might think that everything was covered. I want to tell the Deputy that it is in that spirit I am saying that it is better to deal with the point by regulation rather than by amendment.
The Minister cannot break the law by a regulation.
He will not break the law.
There ought to be some elasticity in connection with this, not barbed-wire local government, because that is what we are getting.
The Minister ought to allow himself some elasticity.
If you put it in the Bill you have no elasticity. We cannot foresee everything.
Does not the Minister think that there ought to be some elasticity where life and limb are at stake?
We want elasticity. We want to have it so that it will not be cast-iron and prevent a person doing something which might save life.
Is the Minister advised that the situation can be met by an exemption under Section 15?
I am advised that the matter can be dealt with better by a regulation.
Made under Section 15?
Yes.
The Minister says he is definitely advised that, by regulation, he can incorporate the content of the amendment and provide for the same eventuality?
Yes, what is intended by the amendment.
You can provide for that contingency?
Yes
The Minister has definitely before his mind that this is as possible contingency and therefore it may be met?
Yes, but life might be in danger, and I am advised that it is better to provide for that by regulation.
Yes, if it can be done by regulation.
That is what I am told.
This is a matter of life and death, and does the Minister think that it is better to leave it as it stands, and not go by regulation?
I am advised that the amendment is too narrow, and it is from that point of view that I am asking the Deputy not to press for the amendment.
If the Minister is going to put the obligation on the Department of Local Government and Public Health, so that it must go through all the various channels, the whole country might be dead and buried in the meantime.
It can be done by regulation.
Unless the regulations work automatically, as I say, the whole country might be dead and buried.
Apparently, it can be done by regulation.
That is what I am advised.
I move amendment No. 29a:—
At the end of sub-section (2) to add the words:—
—"provided that pending the making of such regulations the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1925 regarding the purchase of commodities from persons who are not official contractors shall continue in force."
If the Deputy would withdraw that amendment at this stage, I should like to consider it on the Report Stage.
The Minister wishes it to be left over for the Report Stage?
Yes. It can be reconsidered on the Report Stage.
On the section, Sir, may I ask the Minister if, on the Report Stage, he would consider the advisability of inserting the word "shall" at the beginning of the section — that is, that the Minister "shall" make regulations, and so on?
I shall consider that.
On Section 16, Sir, the only point I mentioned on the Second Stage was with regard to the speeding up of this matter of testing, and I should like to know if any steps have been taken in that regard. It may happen that a local authority may be waiting for the matter under test to be determined, and if they have to wait for five or six months before the test be determined, that may seriously affect them.
These things are being attended to.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In sub-section (2), page 13, line 22, to delete the word "At" and substitute the words "As soon as may be after".
This is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In sub-section (2), line 26, to delete all words after the words " that sum on the" to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "contractors to the local authorities in proportion to the value of their annual contracts".
With regard to the object of this amendment, the view, on this side of the House at all events, is taken that this Bill has been designed, not to benefit the local authorities but to benefit the contractors, and therefore our view is that the contractors should pay for its operation rather than the local authorities who, certainly, as the Minister has admitted in the case of Dublin, will be made pay, by the operation of the Bill, more for their commodities, apart from paying for these particular things. The effect of the amendment is to throw the onus of payment on to the contractors instead of the local authority.
With regard to that point, the practice has been that the local authorities should pay on the valuation basis, and it is considered that this amendment would be unworkable. First of all, it can be accepted that the contractors can recover on their tenders. And it is believed that the practice that has worked fairly well up to this, and the procedure laid down in the Bill, which has been adopted for 14 years, should be adhered to.
In other words, the Minister means that you cannot beat the contractors?
It does not mean that at all.
They can take it back off you.
Well, I think it was the Deputy's own Government that introduced that Bill, and the system seemed to work all right.
That is the best testimonial the Minister has paid so far.
Well, it has worked, anyhow.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In sub-section (2), lines 26-27, to delete the words "Saorstát Eireann" and substitute the word "Ireland".
This is the same point that we had before. The word "Government" does not occur here. This refers to the counties and county boroughs.
Yes. Well, we do not consider that it is necessary to substitute another word.
The only amendment in my name is the one to substitute the word "Ireland".
We do not think it is necessary.
Well, what about the amendment? Is it being accepted?
We are not accepting it.
Well, accordingly, this is Saorstát Eireann?
We will accept the first part of the amendment — that is, to delete the words "Saorstát Eireann"— but not the next part.
You cannot divide an amendment in that way.
Well, what I shall do is to put in an amendment myself on the next occasion.
Why not put in "Ireland" now, and take it out on the next occasion? I think it is better, at any rate, to have "Ireland" than "Saorstát Eireann".
Am I to take it that the Minister is leaving the words "Saorstát Eireann" there?
I am not, but I shall have to leave it there for the present.
I move amendment No. 33:—
In sub-section (3), lines 31-33, to delete all the words from the words "The council" to and including the word "borough", line 33, and substitute the words "The contractors shall pay the amount assessed under the previous sub-section."
This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 31, which has been withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In sub-section (3), page 13, lines 33 and 34, to delete the words "within three months after the date of such order".
It is considered unnecessary to put a limit on the time.
On the section, Sir, I only hope that the word "gratuities" will be correctly spelled in the next edition of the Bill.
With regard to this section, it appears to me that there is a new idea introduced here. It would appear that special people have not been engaged for the purposes of this particular Act, and therefore we may take it that the people dealing with it will be the ordinary civil servants engaged in the Department. Notwithstanding that, it says here that the Minister is going to include, among his expenses, "such charges in respect of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities, on death or retirement, as the Minister shall, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, determine to be proper." So that, the local authorities, in addition to the other charges, in connection with contractors and so on, will have to pay superannuation allowances and pensions and so on of officers who are working this thing in the interests of the Department and the contractors. Apparently this is going to be put on the local authorities. I think it is an unfair burden. It ought to go on the Department in the usual way.
I suggest that if the word "wilfully" were inserted before the word "obstructs" at the beginning of sub-section (2), it would be more reasonable.
I accept that suggestion for Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 38:—
To delete paragraph (c).
This paragraph was regarded as unnecessary. It is covered by paragraph (e) in view of the provisions of Section 11.
What did it mean in the first instance?
It was a mistake to put it in in the first place and it is being deleted now.
It would not permit the Minister to determine the conditions under which goods are produced? Would it prevent the Minister, for instance, from determining whether goods were produced under conditions which were not sweated conditions?
I am advised that it is unnecessary and that it is better to take it out.
I should like to hear the Minister on the point that I make. Would this prevent him from investigating the conditions under which goods were produced, or from determining the conditions under which they should be produced?
It has nothing to do with production, but with conditions of supply.
That is a very wide term.
I move amendment No. 39:—
To add to the section the following sub-section:—
(2) The Minister may by special direction prescribe that any regulations made under this section shall not apply in relation to a specified commodity or shall apply in relation to a specified commodity with specified modifications, or that a provision not applying in relation to a specified commodity by virtue of any regulation made under this section shall apply in relation to that commodity.
(3) Where a special direction in respect of any commodity has been given under this section, any person, who before such direction was given applied to be appointed as official contractor for the supply of that commodity, and who has not been appointed in pursuance of the said application, may withdraw the said application at any time before he is so appointed.
(4) A special direction given under this section in respect of any commodities shall not apply in relation to any official contractor for the supply of that commodity who was appointed to be such official contractor before such direction was given so long as he continues to be such official contractor by virtue of such appointment.
(5) The Minister may at any time by special direction amend or revoke a special direction previously given under this section, including a special direction given under this sub-section.
(6) In this Act the word "prescribed" means, according as may be appropriate, prescribed by regulations made under this section or by a special direction given under this section or by the joint operation of regulations so made and a special direction so given.
Having regard to the great variety of commodities with which the Combined Purchasing section deals, it is found impossible to cover matters such as procedure, conditions of supply, and other such things, by general regulations applying to every case, and in order to make the procedure flexible, power is given in this amendment to the Minister to deal with peculiar cases by means of special directions. No contractor's interests will be prejudiced by a special direction given without his knowledge.
I wonder does sub-section (3) further facilitate the operation of a ring? Does it allow a man to back out, even after he has been accepted but not appointed? It does appear to me that there is something in the point that he is allowed to back out of his price.
If the regulations are changed after he has made the contract, it is only fair to let him retire if he did not know of the conditions.
Would his statement that he did not know be accepted?
Again, the Minister would have to be satisfied.
Who is to know that?
The Minister. It might happen that the regulations would be made after he had tendered.
That is placing the Minister in a very funny position.
I do not think so.
