I think it was on the Committee Stage that Senator Sir John Keane proposed an amendment to this section. The object of it was to allow an official contractor to sell goods to one or more local authorities. There was a long discussion on the proposal, and I think it was generally agreed that the wording was not quite sufficiently definite to give effect to the idea in the Senator's mind. Accordingly it was left to be redrafted. I understand Senator Sir John Keane is in agreement with our proposal.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - LOCAL AUTHORITIES (COMBINED PURCHASING) BILL, 1925—REPORT STAGE.
Section 1.—To delete the words "one or more" in line 19, inserted in Committee, and after the word "authorities" in the same line to insert the words "in Saorstát Eireann or any particular part thereof."
Amendment put and agreed to.
GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT:—
Section 3, sub-section (1)—(a) to delete the words "in respect of" in lines 44-45 and to substitute therefor the words "for the supply of."
(b) After the word "commodities" in line 45 to insert the words "to local authorities in Saorstát Eireann or any specified part thereof."
This is a consequential amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 3, by leave, withdrawn.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The next is a Government amendment. It reads:
In Section 3, sub-section (3), after the word "period," in line 57, to insert the words "and for the area."
Amendment put and agreed to.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The next four amendments stand in the name of Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde. I am informed that he is ill and confined to his room. As far as I can understand, he has not asked any other Senator to move his amendments for him.
He asked me in a general way to move them, but I do not think he is pressing them very much. I beg to move the first amendment standing in his name. It reads:
In Section 6, sub-section (1), after the word "commodity," in lines 49, to insert the words "at a price in excess of that at which a similar commodity could be obtained from an official contractor."
I have not very much to say on this amendment, but perhaps the Minister would take it into his consideration.
I had a somewhat similar amendment down for consideration on the Committee Stage of the Bill, and I desire to second this amendment. I think it is right that we should allow the local bodies to accept a contract from a local person if the price at which they get the article is not in excess of the price of the official contractor. I think the amendment that we are considering would, if accepted, help to carry that idea out.
As Senator Linehan has mentioned, this was a matter that was very fully debated on the Committee Stage. The Senator, I think, has not quite definitely stated what the effect of this amendment would be. In the Bill the local authority has already the power of giving a preference to a contractor, other than the official contractor, where the price is cheaper and the quality superior. This is really a question of changing the onus. The amendment would throw the onus on the Local Government auditor of finding out these particular cases, and whether, in fact, the price was lower and the quality superior. The whole tenor of the Bill has been to throw that responsibility on the officials of the local authority. The idea is, that henceforth the normal procedure should be to purchase the goods from the official contractor. It would seriously hamper the working of the measure if the onus was to be changed, and if in every particular case the Minister was responsible for finding out whether the local authority was justified in changing from the official contractor or not. For that reason, I must strenuously oppose this amendment. An amendment aiming at practically the same thing was defeated on the Committee Stage.
Amendment put and negatived.
I beg to move the next amendment which stands in the name of Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde. It reads:—
"In Section 6, sub-section (2) after the word ‘shall' in line 52 to insert the words ‘if required.'"
In effect this amendment is somewhat similar to the last one, and I must oppose it on the same grounds. In auditing accounts the general rule is that the responsible official of the local authority must always bring to the notice of the auditor any unusual facts. This amendment proposes to change that onus, and, to put on the auditor the duty of finding out in each particular case whether or not this change has in fact been made.
Amendment put and declared carried.
The following is the next amendment in the name of Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde which I also move:—
"In Section 9, sub-section (2), to delete the sub-section."
I think the meaning of the amendment is understood by everyone.
I was waiting for some Senator to give a reason for making this proposal. Until some argument is put forward in favour of the amendment, the presumption should be that the Bill is all right as it stands. I cannot argue against the amendment until something is said in favour of it.
Is the Minister against the acceptance of the amendment?
I am.
Then I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move the following, which is the last amendment in the name of Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde:
"In section 9, sub-section (3), to delete the sub-section."
I do not know whether anyone is interested in this amendment or not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The last amendment is a Government one, and is as follows:—
In Section 12, line 47, before paragraph (d) to insert a new paragraph (d) as follows:—
"(d) authorising the provision by the Minister of official samples of any commodity for which he proposes to appoint an official contractor and providing for the deposit of such official samples for public inspection."
I should like to know whether the effect of this amendment would be to throw the responsibility on the Minister of providing these samples.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The provision is a purely permissive one.
I am satisfied then.
Amendment put and agreed to.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That concludes the Report Stage of this Bill.