asked the Minister for Supplies if he is aware that the unloading, carting and stowing of turf, timber and coal at the Marina, Cork, is being done on a costs plus percentage basis, and if he will state if this work was advertised to be done by contract and tenders invited in August, 1941; if the Minister is further aware that tenders were received at 4/1 per ton less in the case of turf, 11d. per ton less in the case of timber, and 7d. per ton less in the case of coal, than the costs per ton as given by him in the Dáil on June 2nd, that this system entailed a loss of £32,499 on this work to 1st March, 1942; and if he will now see that tenders are again invited and contracts entered into for the balance of the work.

I am aware that the unloading, carting and stowing of turf, timber and coal are being done on a cost plus percentage basis at most of the depôts, including Cork, at which such fuel is stored by Fuel Importers (Eire), Ltd. I am informed that no invitations to tender for such work were issued in August, 1941, but a certain firm offered about that time to do the work in Cork at much lower rates than those then being incurred. The tender was not considered as a serious quotation in view of experience already gained in Cork and elsewhere as to the cost of these operations. In March last firms interested in handling, carting and clamping turf in substantial quantities were invited to communicate with Fuel Importers (Éire), Ltd. Two Cork firms quoted and the higher of the two quotations was submitted by the firm referred to in the Deputy's question.

Does the Minister deny that a public advertisement was issued inviting tenders for that work?

In August, 1941?

In July or August, 1941?

No such advertisement was issued.

Is the Minister prepared to go into the correspondence in connection with that matter?

Quite fully.

Apparently the Minister is now satisfied that this is the cheapest way of getting the work done?

That is a separate question. The position is that this firm mentioned by the Deputy submitted a quotation for doing this work which was not regarded as serious. The firm did, in fact, get some of the work on a cost plus percentage basis, and on that basis it charged nearly double what it quoted when making its original application. When they were invited subsequently to tender, their tender was higher still—in fact, it was the highest received.

Is the Minister aware that these people have had 20 years' experience of contract work in Cork, in which period they were considered good contractors? They wrote asking for all the information necessary to enable them to give a proper tender for this work. The amount lost in the storage of turf in Cork was £21,000 up to March last. The balance was lost in respect of timber and coal. When are we going to stop this kind of thing?

I think the Deputy misunderstands the situation. The firm did get some of this work to do on the cost plus percentage basis, and the price for doing it on that basis was substantially higher than their original estimate.

That proves my argument, that the more it costs the more you get.

When they were asked later to quote upon the ordinary basis of tendering for the work, they quoted a still higher price.

Would the Minister quote the price per ton of the tenders which were accepted and of the tenders which were not accepted? Would he give the price per ton quoted by the contractor who did not get the contract and also the price per ton of those who got the contract? I want the two prices.

For what?

A tender was put in and was not accepted, the Minister says, because it was considered——

Ridiculous.

Exactly. I want that price, and then I want the price which was accepted by the Turf Development Board. Will the Minister say if the first contractor got a percentage on the increased price per ton after having tendered at a particular price per ton?

On the 28th August, 1941, this firm quoted for work of carting and clamping turf at 5/5 per ton. That quotation was considered ridiculous. They did, in fact, get some work at cost plus percentage basis which in their case worked out at 9/3½d. They were subsequently invited to tender for the work, and quoted again at 10/9.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice of intention to raise the matter on the adjournment.

On that matter I think I should explain that this is not work for which my Department is responsible. I am giving the Dáil the information which has been sought. I have obtained that information from Fuel Importers, Ltd., which is the organisation responsible for this work.

I shall consider that matter.