asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs why supplies of footwear recently issued to members of the Naval Service at Haulbowline, Cobh, County Cork were of foreign manufacture.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Naval Service Personnel Footwear.
62.
A contract for the footwear in question was placed by my Department in May, 1974, with an Irish manufacturer on the basis of a tender in which it was stated that the items would be made in his factory in Ireland. When delivery of the footwear was received in October 1974, it was found that the items, or some of them, were marked with an indication that they were of foreign manufacture. This was taken up in writing with the contractor who claimed to have understood that the phrase in the original tender had been modified by mutual agreement of both parties when, in subsequent discussions with the Department, he was informed of approval of samples submitted by him. It is not understood how the contractor got the impression that it would be in order to supply foreign made shoes. I am having further inquiries made into this matter.
I thank the Minister for his explanation which I fully accept and I hope it dispels the annoyance of many people, including the recipients of this foreign manufactured footwear branded "Saville Row". Can the Minister inform the House of the amount and the value of foreign footwear supplied to the Army and the members of the Naval Service during the past 12 months and would he give an assurance to the House that such contracts in future will be notified in sufficient time to enable native firms to consider accepting them?
I understand the Deputy's concern in this matter and we all share it. I understand that tenders were invited by the Controller of Stores on 24th April, 1974, from 13 firms, all Irish, for 1,000 pairs of naval pattern boots and 300 pairs of naval pattern shoes. Only two quotations were received. The lower of the two quotations was submitted by a firm in County Monaghan whose tender was endorsed to the effect that the articles would be manufactured by the manufacturer who was tendering. The contract was issued to that firm on 22nd May, 1974. Because of some doubt as to the firm's ability to meet the exact specification for the footwear they were asked to submit samples.
In discussions with the firm it was confirmed that they were not in a position to make the type of footwear required which is described as "Goodyear Welted" but they were reluctant to lose the contract and wished to investigate the possibility of having the boots and shoes made in accordance with the specification and standard pattern. No indication was given that it was intended to have the items manufactured in England and it was assumed that they would approach one of the three manufacturers in this country who are capable of producing Goodyear welted footwear. Following discussion of the specification a sample boot was later submitted and this was approved, the firm being told that shoes of similar construction would be acceptable. The sample boot received gave no indication of where it was made. I am not quite satisfied here in that I think it would have been well if inquiry had been made as to where it was made. When delivery was received in October it was found that the shoes were marked "Saville Row, British made". The boots bore no mark indicating where they were made but it has been confirmed that they were made in Dublin. The marking of the items was taken up with the contractor. In his reply he referred to the samples which had been submitted and to the approval of the samples received in subsequent discussions. His reply went on:
So at that stage I was happy that the phrase in the original tender was modified by mutual agreement of both parties.
I think that is somewhat exaggerated. However, I should point out that the price difference between the two tenders received for the shoes was greater than the margin of preference normally allowed under Government contract rules for Irish manufacture.
I accept the Minister's explanation fully but I want his assurance that we will not have a recurrence of this. Obviously there was muddling and messing going on.
Yes, I would like to assure the Deputy that every step will be taken to ensure that.