Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Oct 1929

Vol. 32 No. 4

Private Deputies' Business. - Rathmines Road Repair Contract.

I will not detain the House very long with the remarks that I wish to make at this stage. The Minister this afternoon, in reply to the question raised by me as to why he refused sanction to the Rathmines Urban District Council to accept the lowest tender for a road repair contract said: "In the case of a road improvement contract I have refused to the Rathmines Urban District Council sanction to accept a tender of Messrs. Grainger Brothers, which was the lowest tender offered. It has been intimated to the Council that in the event of this tender being accepted a grant from the Road Fund allocated towards the improvement of this road will be withheld."

Now, in so far as we Independent Deputies know the facts that are relevant they are very brief indeed. This particular road improvement was part of a scheme which was approved of some time ago by the Local Government Department, and to enable the Council to carry out that scheme I understand that a grant of £2,900 was to be made from the Road Fund. On the strength of that the Council invited tenders and met to consider the tenders submitted under the approval of their engineer. Those tenders were remarkable in that the lowest tender was over £1,500 less than the second lowest. A sum of £1,500 in a contract of £7,000 is a very substantial figure. During the past three years I understand that the Council have carried out road improvement work to the extent of £35,000, and never before during that period have they been asked to submit a tender that they accepted for the approval of the Local Government Department. But it seems remarkable that on this occasion, on the very day that the Council was going to consider the tenders that were submitted, a letter was written by the Local Government Department stating that it would be necessary for them to submit the tender for the approval of the Department. The Minister went on in his reply to say: "I do not accept the implication that my action will cause an increase in the township rate. The action is intended to secure that road improvement in the Rathmines Urban District will be economically and efficiently carried out." That is precisely the object of the Council. What the Independent Deputies want to know is why the Urban Council will not be allowed to effect a saving of over £1,500 in a contract of this kind. They have been assured that the tender is submitted by a substantial firm which is able to carry out the work efficiently and economically, and they have been given evidence to that effect. I may state that the contract was to be carried with a ten years' guarantee as to the excellence of the work, and the firm undertook to provide bank guarantees up to £50,000 as to their financial position.

On the face of these facts, some of the Independent Deputies want to be given some reason which they could not guess, but some reason which ought to be made public if there was any just cause for refusing permission to the Council to effect this economy. The Minister, in his reply this afternoon, however, seemed to suggest that this saving of £1,500, if not permitted, would not lead to an increase in the township rate. If the Minister carries out his intention of refusing a grant of £2,900, it is perfectly clear that the Council will have to provide £1,400 in excess of what otherwise they would have to spend, and though that would not be provided immediately out of the rates, ultimately it would have to be provided and would lead to an increase in the rates struck in the township. These are the facts as we know them, and we have drawn attention to the matter in order that the fullest publicity may be given to the Minister's reasons for refusing sanction to the tender.

On the 25th May, 1929, the Rathmines Urban District Council were advised that the sum of £2,962 had been "provisionally allotted" to the Council for road improvement on the Rathgar Road. This amount was part of the total cost of the proposed improvement, the balance of any money necessary being provided by the Rathmines Urban District Council out of a loan.

The resultant tenders were due to reach the Rathmines Council on the 24th June, and alternative tenders were to be submitted, namely, for mastic asphalt and for sheet asphalt. Now perhaps it is better to say a word on the question of mastic asphalt. Mastic asphalt is laid by hand. It is emptied from buckets when hot and fluid and compacted with a wooden float; then crimped with a hand-crimping machine. All other asphalts are compressed by rollers. For this reason, and because the ingredients of mastic asphalt are specially prepared to a uniform excellence, mastic asphalt is superior to two-coat or one-coat or sheet or asphaltic concrete. It does not become rugose, corrugated or wavy. All these words describe practically the same thing, except that wavy means a surface more gone to pieces than a corrugated surface. Even good two-coat asphalt recently laid shows a wavy appearance under head-lights in wet weather. Mastic asphalt does not show this, and endures longer in perfect condition. Waviness is a fatal defect, even when very slight. An impact effect is produced and the road is hammered to premature destruction. Its elimination in places where traffic is heavy is most desirable. In Dublin it has been laid down in such places as Upper O'Connell Street, Dame Street, Nassau Street, Dawson Street, Merrion Row, Upper Merrion Street, Lower Baggot Street.

Now as I say the tenders were due to reach the Rathmines Council on the 24th June and the tenders received were as follows:—

Associated Asphalt Co., Ltd., London, 22/6d. per sq. yd.

G. Wimpey & Co., Ltd., London, 20/9d. per sq. yd.

T.J. Moran, Ltd., Dublin, 19/8d. per sq. yd.

South of Ireland Asphalt Co., Dublin, 19/5d. per sq. yd.

Grainger Bros., Co. Down, 16/- per sq. yd.

This latter tender is the one that I have refused to approve and it is the one that the Rathmines Urban District Council accepted.

I propose now to show, first, that Messrs. Grainger's general work for us has been unsatisfactory in the past, and in many cases very unsatisfactory. In the second place I will show, in spite of this, that it was thought to be our duty in the Department in view of the difference of price to approve of Messrs. Grainger's tender if it could be established that this firm had previously satisfactorily laid mastic asphalt. I will show in the third place that despite a rather exhaustive inquiry no evidence was produced that they had previously laid mastic asphalt; and in the fourth place I will show that on the other hand there was a widespread and elaborate implication to the contrary, an implication that they had carried out work of this kind and that they had laid mastic asphalt.

In dealing with these particular matters, however, I am in the position not so much of stating the reasons why in a particular instance the lowest tender submitted for a piece of road work was not accepted, as in the position of replying to a general charge of corruption in administration and charges of political discrimination. Deputy Thrift, though he made no reference to it in his opening statement, will realise that. Some members of the Rathmines Urban District Council in the first case, the Editor of the "Irish Times" in the second case, and following these, some of the Six County Press have all thought fit to charge the Department in the matter of this contract with being guilty of financial corruption and political discrimination. I want to refer to these charges so that we can keep them in the forefront of the case.

It is a matter of the very greatest importance that public confidence in the probity or efficiency, and particularly the probity, of a Department like the Department of Local Government, which deals with the control of the expenditure of so much money, and the expenditure on roads and such business as the general expenditure and supervision of general local expenditure, should be maintained. The Local Government Department has, in addition to these duties, such work as the getting of tenders for Combined Purchasing, and such work as being the Appeal Board in old age pensions. I think you would want to be clear as to the type of charges that are being made in this connection against the Department. In the light of these charges relating to these circumstances as to what has actually taken place, the spectrum of the charges can, perhaps, best be seen by quotations from the editorial comment of the "Irish Times," which has dealt with this matter on three occasions, on the 5th September, on the 5th October, and on the 24th October.

On the 5th September, the comment of the "Irish Times" was as follows:—

"At yesterday's meeting of the Rathmines Urban Council attention was called to the interference of the Free State Department for Local Government in respect of a contract for the asphalting of Rathgar Road. It seems that tenders were invited for this work in the ordinary way, and that the firm of Messrs. Grainger, of Belfast, had submitted a tender which was £1,500, or 21½ per cent. lower than any other bid. The Public Health Committee naturally recommended the acceptance of this tender, which duly was approved by the Council; but the Department for Local Government refused to sanction it, having first asked for documentary evidence of the firm's financial standing"—

I may say that the Department never asked for such evidence—

"and its ability to perform the job according to the conditions of the contract. The Surveyor of the Rathmines Council went to Belfast, where he satisfied himself completely concerning the solvency and efficiency of the firm, but the Local Government Department, ignoring these facts, persisted in its refusal to sanction the contract. We agree heartily with those members of the Rathmines Council who declared yesterday that further explanation was necessary. Apparently some quibble about the difference between mastic and sheet asphalt has been raised; but no intelligent citizen will be deceived by such a childish excuse. The fact that Messrs, Grainger have their headquarters in Northern Ireland makes the matter worse. It will encourage the suspicion that the Local Government Department's action has a political basis."

A month later, that is on the 5th October, the editorial in the "Irish Times," reads:—

"Why has the Minister banned this tender concerning which three things are established—that it is by far the lowest tender, that it guarantees the material which the Department itself demands, and that, by expert testimony, Messrs. Grainger are thoroughly competent to fulfil the contract? There are three—and only three— rational explanations of the Department's conduct. One is that it has some personal animus against the firm of Grainger, and another is that some member of the Department has a financial interest in one of the rejected tenders. Since, of course, we must scout both suggestions, we are forced back upon the third—that Messrs. Grainger are condemned solely because they are a North of Ireland firm. For this strictly political reason, then, an important road must remain unrepaired, and employment must be withheld from needy citizens of the Free State. The matter has not merely a local, but a national interest. Is this boycott of Northern firms the accepted policy not only of Mr. Mulcahy's Department, but of the Free State Government?"

Again, on the 24th October, in a further editorial in the "Irish Times," the matter is dealt with. I will read these extracts:—

"The Rathmines Urban Council in defying the mysterious ukase of the Local Government Ministry has performed a national service. The Ministry refused to sanction the proposed contract, on the ground that Messrs. Grainger could not fulfil it satisfactorily. This objection, as the council showed, was ridiculous.

"The Rathmines Council made several efforts to induce the Ministry to revoke, or at least to explain, its decision. They were futile.

"In the first place, the Ministry condemns without rhyme or reason a tender—which happens to be the lowest tender—from a competent firm.

"It is clear that some strong motive inspires the Ministry's action. To suggest any personal motive—such as an interest in some rival tender—would be to assume an almost inconceivable return to ancient wallowings in the mire. We must conclude, therefore, that the motive is political, and that Messrs. Grainger are condemned because they had their headquarters in Northern Ireland. An important question arises instantly, when and by what authority was this boycott introduced?"

Deputies will, as I say, get from these articles somewhat the full spectrum of the charges made against the Department. The full gamut of these charges will be found, perhaps, in less flowing terms in the discussion that took place at the Rathmines Urban District Council on the various dates on which they discussed the matter. I want to give this sample. It is from the report of the "Irish Times" of the 5th October, of the meeting of the Council on the 4th October. Mr. Benson, dealing with the matter, answering a member of the Council, said:—

"We were convinced that the firm was reputable and highly efficient, and, on the authority of the Chief Engineer of Belfast, we knew that they had done mastic asphalt and done it satisfactorily. However, the Government still adhered to their original decision not to allow the contract to go to Graingers. They had done a thing that they had never done before— that was to insist on the tenders being sent to them, and to dictate to us how we should deal with them. Any outsider who went into the whole question, and who was not assured that the Department is the soul of probity and honour, would have come to the conclusion, either that there was some personal animus against the firm or Grainger, or else that some person in the Department had a financial interest in one of the other firms. We, knowing the Department, know, of course, that neither of these could possibly happen, but the Council considered that they would not be doing right in giving the contract to the next contractor, whose tender was so much higher."

Now, speaking in public we see that Mr. Benson says that, "knowing the Department, we know, of course, that neither of these things could possibly have happened." But, speaking in committee on this particular matter, Mr. Benson thought fit to remark that "there was somebody in the Local Government Department getting a right hand-over." Another member of the Rathmines Urban Council, referring to Mr. Benson's publicly made remark, said that she could not share Mr. Benson's confidence in the Department, while a third stated that "he would be glad to accept a tender from a North of Ireland firm, that he hated the Boundary, and he thought that an Irish firm should get the contract without taking into account whether it was from the North or the South." That is a sample of the mind disclosed in the Rathmines Urban Council on this matter.

The Press of the Six Counties naturally has a great deal of material for comment on all this, and they made full use of it. On the 14th September, referring to what had previously transpired in connection with the discussions on the matter, the "Irish Builder and Engineer" wrote:—

"It seems very unfair to contractors who go to a great deal of trouble in preparing competitive tenders for public works, if they are to be passed over when their tender is the lowest, and a preference of £1,500 given to a rival firm in a £5,000 work. The loss to the ratepayers is, of course, obvious, but their claims seem to receive little consideration at times."

It is an important thing when a series of charges like these are levelled against the Department, in which probity and efficiency of administration are so vital for the general interest, that it should be answered fully and without regard to the consequences of any other person's reputation or interest. One thing that has particularly marked the conduct of all the officials with whom I have been connected in the Local Government Department is, in the first place, if we speak simply of roads for the moment, their absolutely detached and up-to-date outlook on the technical and administrative aspect of their work and the scrupulous regard that they have as to the prestige of the various firms with which they necessarily come into contact. If the reputation of any of these firms is to be damaged now let those who bring about the situation unnecessarily blame themselves. Messrs. Grainger cannot complain if their interest or reputation is hurt by anything I have to say, because from July of this year until the winding-up of this matter they could have given a straight answer to the one question asked them, and that was whether and when had they ever done a mastic asphalt job. The Rathmines Urban Council cannot complain. Their surveyor was in close touch with the Roads Section of the Department; their members do not live very far from the Custom House, and any information that they required could have been had there, and the Editor of the "Irish Times" cannot complain, because I think that the Press cannot make any complaint that in the normal and responsible discharge of their Press functions they are ever refused any information that could reasonably be asked by them. So that none of the people I have mentioned has a complaint if anything that is said hurts anyone's reputation or anyone's interest.

I want to deal with the question of our experience of Messrs. Grainger, our attitude as to the acceptance of the tender, and what transpired afterwards. I have said that our experience of Messrs. Grainger's work was that it has been very unsatisfactory. Messrs. Grainger have been carrying out road contracts for the past twenty-five years. They had almost a monopoly of steam-rolling contracts in pre-war years. Their work lay far more in the southern counties than in the Belfast area. During the past four or five years we have had more difficulty and disputes with Messrs. Grainger than with all the other contractors combined, with a legacy of poor work and much waste of valuable official time. Messrs. Gregg Brothers, of Larne, and Messrs. Moore & MacCartan are also North of Ireland contractors. We have had no difficulty with them. They have done good work and have been paid in full. From 1923 the plain steam-rolling has been progressively curtailed, and asphalt, concrete, and tar bitumen surfacings adopted. Messrs. Grainger's firm was one of the first to undertake tar bitumen macadam for us. This was on the Dublin-Swords road in 1925. There was the utmost trouble in getting proper work done. Messrs. Grainger's men were found to have very little knowledge of how such work should be done when a commencement was made. Final payment was only made many months after the completion of the surfacing, and was only then made when Messrs. Grainger had laid a mile or so of the road with an inch depth of top coat over and above the depth specified, so as to make up for the inferior stuff underneath. The work was badly done and was, even with the additional penalty work, bad value for the money. The contractors were, however, treated leniently and with consideration for difficulties encountered. I have to read to Deputies a letter showing the difficulties created for the Dublin County Surveyor and what his opinion of Grainger's work then was. The letter is dated 7th February, 1925, and is addressed to Messrs. Grainger Brothers, 74 Ranelagh Road, Dublin. It is headed "Swords Road Contract":

Dear Sirs,—

I duly received your letter of 28th ultimo asking for a payment on above contract.

Together with Mr. Quigley, Chief Engineer, Road Dept., Ministry of Local Government, I made an inspection of the bituminous macadam work. Something over half a mile of raodway is completed and the work is proceeding rapidly.

The result in the "finished surface" is so utterly disastrous that a complete stoppage of the work should, in our opinion, be made. We cannot possibly certify for payment. The surface does not in the least resemble a bituminous or tar macadam roadway, it is like an ordinary waterbound macadam about to go to pieces, being covered with a light slurry of ordinary whitish mud.

Potholes half an inch deep are common enough, but the worst and most disastrous feature is the working loose of patches of the "finished" roadway, resembling shingle on a beach. On these loose patches the macadam has lost all semblance of tar or bitumen covered particles. The whole surface of the work threatens to go loose in this way. The work is not being carried out according to specifications:

1. The arrangements for the proper heating and mixing of the tar and bitumen are unsatisfactory, as no means of ascertaining the temperature is on the job.

2. A good deal of bad soft stone, including a quantity of "calcite," is being allowed to go into the crusher.

3. The spreading is being badly done without rakes and forks, and a good four inches of material should be spread as specified.

4. The binding. The stone crushed chippings do not conform with the specification. The chippings being used by you are dirty and contain a large volume of moisture; in fact, they resemble mortar more than stone crusher chippings.

5. Sealing coat. No proper attempt has been made by you to properly carry out this portion of the work. The sealing is done in an irregular fashion, and I have seen several parts of the road which have not been sealed at all.

The chippings used for this work are also very bad, and the use of material of this kind must be discontinued. I would prefer that you should use spramex for the sealing coat.

With further reference to our conversation of this date and your suggestion to slow down work, I am quite agreeable to facilitate you in every way I can to enable you to carry out the work satisfactorily, but unless a complete change is made in the quality of the work I shall reluctantly be compelled to order a stoppage of the work.—Yours faithfully,

J.A. RYAN,

County Surveyor.

Under the National Road Scheme these contractors undertook three contracts, the first in Longford town and Dublin Road near the town—tar bitumen macadam, £6,430. In this case, final payment was made only after prolonged wrangling with the contractors as to making good defects. The surface now after a year's wear is pitted and lumpy in many parts and is one of the worst results we have had under the scheme. Secondly, Kilkenny—tar bitumen macadam on main roads south of the town, £15,272. This is the best work done by these contractors. They had a good engineer in charge here. They were paid in full, but the surfacing compares badly with the first-class work done for us by English contractors. Third, Ballina—streets of town. Grant, £8,668, tar bitumen macadam. This contract was approved on 25th July, 1927. This work, though begun in August, 1927, has not been paid for in full up to the present as this letter from the County Surveyor of Mayo will show. It is addressed from the County Surveyor's Office, Castlebar, and dated 4th July, 1929:—

Messrs. Grainger Bros.,

Hollywood, Belfast.

Dear Sirs,—I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 24th ultimo asking for payment of the amount due under your contract for laying the streets of Ballina in tar macadam. The total area of tar macadam laid by you amounted to 29,941 square yards at 5/8 per square yard—value for £8,483 5s. 8d. You have received to date £7,786 12s. 6d. leaving a nominal balance of £696 13s. 2d. I withheld payment of this amount pending inspection by a responsible engineer from the Government Department and this inspection was carried out on the 2nd July. My reason for holding up this sum was because I was very much dissatisfied with the deterioration which is already apparent in your work, and I felt that the work was very much inferior to the work carried out in Sligo and other works which I have seen carried out at a much lower price.

Frequently during the progress of the work I had to make complaints about the way in which the work was being carried out, and on one occasion, on which I found absolute scamping going on, I had to demand the removal of your foreman, who was responsible.

Towards the end of your maintenance period several defects were apparent, and I pointed those out to your representative, Mr. Green, who undertook to have them remedied. The repairs which he then carried out were not satisfactory, and the road at present is in very much worse condition than it should be after five years' wear. On both sides of the road along by the kerb, and along by the fence from Rehins Bridge to the Railway Station, the road has completely perished for about 4 feet on either side. Again, opposite the Courthouse, there are several defects. Along Bury Street the surface is very lumpy, and there was absolutely no excuse here, for the foundation was quite good. Again, from Atkinson's Bridge to Bunree Bridge, and particularly in front of the College and the Palace, the road has absolutely failed, and is now up to the standard of waterbound macadam. I cannot agree that satisfactory work has been done, and you had no excuse, as you had quite a satisfactory price. You still have your plant in Ballina, and I think, in your own interests, it would be well if you would even now have matters put right.

Pending a reply to the effect that you will put matters right, I am issuing a certificate for £345 13s. 2d., and am retaining £350, which I consider is the least sum for which the necessary repairs could be carried out in Colfix grout and spray. Kindly let me know whether for the sake of your reputation you will have matters put right, or whether, in the interests of the public, I am to expend the amount now withheld in repairing the road in the best way I can.—Yours faithfully,

THOS. P. FLANAGAN,

County Surveyor.

Mr. Flanagan is the County Surveyor who was selected by the Local Appointments Commission recently in open competition as County Surveyor for Offaly when there was a vacancy there. The County Mayo people were not satisfied to lose him, and increased his salary in order to keep him. Ultimately in the Ballina case there was an inspection on 24th October, 1929, and in the meantime the firm had made a reasonable effort to carry out the improvement work that was suggested, and it was agreed to pay the firm £300, but the balance of £50 is being withheld, because of the general unsatisfactory nature of the work done. I may say that at the time the contract was accepted for Ballina at 5/8 from Messrs. Grainger there was a tender at 5/8¾ per square yard from another firm. In spite of what might be thought about not accepting the lowest tender, particularly the lowest tender from a North of Ireland firm, I feel that a very great mistake has been made in everybody's interest in not taking the tender of the firm that was ¾d. per square yard higher than Messrs. Grainger.

In Roscommon, on a grant of £6,422, notified in February, 1924, Messrs. Grainger Brothers did some steam-rolling work between Athlone and Ballinasloe on a "time and material" basis, and it worked out at £1,350 a mile. The County Surveyor immediately afterwards undertook similar work by direct labour, and the cost worked out at £800 a mile for exactly similar work, being a saving of £550 a mile. When, in March, 1927, competitive tenders were received for the laying of a concrete road from Ferryearrig to Enniscorthy, Messrs. Grainger Brothers' tender was £35,841. The next lowest tender was that of the Pioneer Road Construction Co., £39,424, a difference of £3,583. On this occasion the Chief Engineer felt it his duty to attend the Wexford County Council meeting, and to advise that as Messrs. Grainger Brothers had not given satisfaction in fairly big works carried out by them they should not accept their tender, but should accept the next lowest. This proposition was approved by the Wexford County Council.

This is the Department's experience. I would ask people who have the type of mind that they will not accept the experience of anyone on this side of the Six County Border, to ask, what is the experience of firms in the Six Counties, and I would particularly ask them why in June, 1928, when Down County Council invited tenders for 22,000 sq. yds. of two coat sheet asphalt, and when the lowest price was in a tender submitted by Messrs. Grainger Brothers at 8s. 9d. per sq. yd. the next lowest, being a tender from The Limmer and Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co. at 11s. per sq. yd., the Down County Council accepted the tender of The Limmer and Trinidad Lake Asphalt Company, rather than Grainger Brothers' tender at 8s. 9d., and I would ask them if that was political discrimination against a North of Ireland firm? I put that experience of the Department of this particular firm in the front of our discussions too, so that we may see things in a better perspective. I said that tenders were to be received on 24th June. On 3rd July the Town Surveyor of Rathmines called to the Department of Local Government and stated that these particular tenders had been received, and that they were at the prices shown. It will be seen that there are four firms tendering at 22s. 6d., 20s. 9d., 19s. 8d., and 19s. 5d. These were the tenders from four firms, that to the Department's knowledge are firms of experience, competent to do the work, and fairly normal in the matter of prices. The next firm is Messrs. Grainger with a tender of 16s., that is 3s. 5d. per sq. yd. below the lowest of the normal firms, as you might say, and 6s. 6d. per sq. yd. below the highest. I said that when giving the tender for the concrete road in Wexford it arose that Messrs. Grainger were £5,600 lower than the Company that actually got it. The position was similar there. There were three or four other companies all about the same figure and Messrs. Grainger were down below these. Here you had a similar position and the Town Surveyor came to the Department. He said these figures had been received. He asked advice and the Department's attitude was that the difference in price was so great that if it could be shown that Graingers' firm had laid mastic asphalt it was their duty to approve of their getting the contract. That was on the 3rd July. On the 4th July the Chief Engineer wrote to the Town Clerk and said:

"Further to your interview with me in which I was disposed to accept the lowest tender, I have made inquiries and as far as I can learn Messrs. Grainger have never carried out mastic asphalt laying.

"In the simple work of laying tar bitumen macadam on the Swords Road, 1924, the work done by this firm was unsatisfactory, largely for the reason that the men employed had not suitable plant or sufficient experience.

"Mastic asphalt is work requiring skilled asphalters, and I consider you will be running too great a risk in accepting inexperienced men. If Messrs. Grainger make good elsewhere as asphalters I will be only too glad to accept their tender here, but I cannot have them experimenting here at our expense."

That letter was signed by the Chief Engineer. The question still was that if it could be shown that they had done this work the departmental mind was that we would not be justified in not approving of their tender. On the 10th July, 1929, the Secretary of the Department wrote to the Clerk of the Urban District Council asking for particulars of the tenders received by the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District Council for the carrying out of the proposed work and asking if they would be good enough to submit them to the Department, and saying that no contracts should be entered into without the prior approval of the Minister. The question has been raised that the Department has taken up a different attitude in regard to this matter, the issuing of the tenders and the approving of their acceptance, from that which is usually taken. That is not a fact. In expending money on the Road Fund one of the conditions of the giving out of these grants is in the first place that the specifications will be specifications that have been submitted to the Department. Cases will occur where specifications have been already approved and are in standard form, as in the case of the City of Dublin. But specifications will have to be submitted to the Department. Anyone will understand the reason of that and will feel that the Road Department would not be doing its duty if it did not require at this hour of the day to see the specifications.

Did the Council submit specifications in this case?

No. The practice is that specifications are required to be submitted, that we require to approve of the tender and that we inspect the work. Tenders were not submitted in this case, and the Rathmines people may be confusing the practice that exists when they do road improvement work out of a loan, their own money, with doing work when they get a grant from the Road Fund. At any rate, we asked them to submit the tenders The tenders were submitted, and it was said:—

"The successful contractors have been informed that the acceptance of the tender is dependent on the approval of the Ministry."

On the 17th July the Secretary wrote again to the Clerk of the Urban District Council:—

"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 12th inst. forwarding particulars regarding the tenders received by the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District Council in connection with the Road Fund grant of £2,960 notified to them on May last. It is understood that the Council propose to accept the tender for the laying of asphalt on a six-inch reinforced concrete foundation from Messrs. Grainger Bros. The Minister would be glad to be furnished with documentary evidence that this firm has previously satisfactorily laid mastic asphalt to a reasonable extent on a public road."

On the 27th July the Town Clerk reports that he has informed us that Mr. Lambert, Town Surveyor, proceeded to Belfast on the 23rd inst. with this object in view.

On the 16th July one of our inspectors discussed at Rathmines the matter with the Town Surveyor, and the Town Surveyor told him that he had a letter from the City Engineer of Belfast stating that Messrs. Grainger had laid mastic asphalt on three streets in Belfast, but he was unable to find the letter; that he telephoned Belfast Corporation and found that the names were Garfield Street, Upper and Lower Queen Street and Brunswick Street, and that engineers had promised to send copies of the specification from which the work had been carried out. Rathmines Council reported that the Town Surveyor had gone to Belfast with the object of finding out that Messrs. Grainger had previously satisfactorily laid mastic asphalt.

On the 31st July the Council submitted:

"As requested in your letter of the 17th inst. (that is where we asked for documentary evidence) I enclose herewith by direction of the Council the following documents regarding the carrying out of asphalt work by Messrs. Grainger Bros.:—

"(1) Copy report, Surveyor, Rathmines District Council, dated 7th July, 1929."

This report is to Mr. Robinson, and says:

"As directed, I visited Belfast last Tuesday and I inspected four streets, namely, Queen Street, Upper and Lower; Garfield Street, and Brunswick Street, laid down by Messrs. Grainger Bros. in 1926. The surfaces are exceptionally good, but in my opinion are laid down in sheet asphalt on concrete, and not in mastic asphalt.

"I interviewed Mr. MacMurray, Assistant Surveyor of Belfast, and I asked him to let me have a statement in writing that the material laid down by Messrs. Grainger is mastic asphalt, and also to let me have a copy of the specification. He said he would let me have both, but I have not yet received them."

And I have never seen them.

This report from Rathmines also included this letter. It is dated City Hall, Belfast, 29th July, 1929. It is addressed to William H. Lambert, Surveyor, Town Hall, Rathmines, and says:

"Asphalt surfaces. Further to our conversation I find on reference to the contract what inspection failed to reveal that Queen Street was partly surfaced by mastic and partly by rolled asphalt, as per attached copy of letter. Therefore I consider it but right to acquaint you of the fact. From inspection it was evident that the suitability of the surfacing was equal and satisfactory in each case.

"Yours faithfully,

"(Signed) R.B. DONALD,

"City Surveyor."

The Town Surveyor of Rathmines went from Rathmines to Belfast to find out if Messrs. Grainger had laid mastic asphalt to any extent in Belfast, and the only mention we get in his report is this letter in which it was stated, in reference to Messrs. Grainger, that Queen Street was partly surfaced by mastic and partly by rolled asphalt. But the mastic asphalt that was laid in Queen Street was not laid by Messrs Grainger.

Has the Minister evidence of that?

I have. I will produce evidence supplied by Messrs. Grainger. One thing has to be kept in mind. We have now come to the end of July and Messrs. Grainger themselves have not said that they have ever laid mastic asphalt. On the receipt of that letter we asked for documentary evidence that they had laid mastic asphalt and the Rathmines Council sent us in this batch of letters. On 7th August the secretary wrote to Rathmines District Council:

"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to state it would appear from the correspondence that the Council proposed to accept the lowest tender in the absence of essential inquiries.

"The Minister attaches the highest importance to the necessity of experience in the laying of a roadway of the type needed, and he does not find in the documents which accompanied your letter of the 31st ult. any evidence that the firm whose tender it is proposed to accept have furnished directly or indirectly any statement to show that they have previously satisfactorily laid mastic asphalt to a reasonable extent on a public road. In the circumstances the Minister cannot approve of the acceptance of the tender."

The Rathmines Urban Council wrote on the 15th August:

"Your letter of the 7th inst. was duly submitted at a meeting held yesterday, when I was directed to refer you to a letter from the City Surveyor, Belfast, to the Surveyor Rathmines, dated 29th July, 1929, with regard to the laying of mastic asphalt, copy of which was enclosed in my letter of 31st ult.

"At the same time, I was instructed to ask you to be good enough to state what course the Minister would advise the Rathmines Urban District Council now to take, in view of the difference in the amount of the tender."

I asked for documentary evidence, and I am referred back again.

The Minister would not think of appointing a Commissioner for Rathmines?

The Rathmines Council were then informed that the normal thing they could do would be to accept the next lowest tender. They decided that they would not do that. They decided they would advertise again, with another specification, a specification which was not submitted to us, and which was of such a kind that two of the contractors tendering—experienced contractors—remarked, with reference to the asking for a ten years guarantee in connection with the matter, that they would not give a ten years guarantee that a road built to that specification would stand up. This was regarded as another terrible intrigue on the part of the Department of Local Government.

In a letter dated 4th October, I got this:

"With reference to your letter of the 1st inst. and former correspondence on the subject of asphalting Rathgar Road, I have to state that at a special meeting of the Council held this day the following resolution was adopted:

"That, in view of the letter from the Department expressing a preference for mastic asphalt in the reconstruction of Rathgar Road, and the letter from Messrs. Grainger Bros., dated 3rd October, 1929, regarding similar work carried out by that firm, the Council hereby postpone the consideration of the tenders received for sheet asphalt, and would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision and approve the original proposal of the Council to accept Messrs. Grainger Bros.' tender, dated June 21st, 1929, at 16/- per square yard and 20/- per square yard for opening.'

"Enclosed herewith I send you copies of letter from Messrs. Grainger Bros., dated October 3rd, 1929."

On the 3rd October, 1929, Messrs. Grainger Bros. wrote:—

"As you are aware, we have again submitted a tender for the asphalt surfacing of the Rathgar Road. If your Council accept our tender we can give you any financial guarantee you may require, and we undertake to lay either hand-floated asphalt or steam-rolled sheet asphalt with the best and most experienced foremen and layers. We have within the past month laid some mastic on one of the most important roads near Belfast, and would be glad if you would come and inspect it. We have in our employ a mastic floater with great experience both in England and in Ireland, and have at our hand a plant foreman of the highest technical skill, who has been for years with some of the largest firms of asphalt layers in Great Britain, and (we assure you) we would have no difficulty in providing qualified experts in making and laying mastic asphalt."

Graingers' first documentary appearance on the scene was on the 3rd October. We asked for evidence, by letter on the 4th July, and in conversation on the 3rd July, that mastic asphalt had been previously laid. It turns up on the 3rd October that a month before they had laid mastic asphalt on an important road in Belfast. We are not prepared to take the statement or even the fact that mastic asphalt was laid by a firm a month ago in Belfast, as showing that the firm had sufficient experience for us to warrant the carrying out of this work here. The question will be raised, are we going to refuse to give the contract to a particular firm if that firm has not done that particular work before? The answer is no. We have to judge a firm on their merits and their reputation, and, on our experience of Messrs. Grainger, we are not prepared to entrust the carrying out of work like that to them here.

I hope that I have made it plain that evidence had not been produced that this firm had laid mastic asphalt or carried out work of this particular type, highly technical work that requires to be carried out in the most careful possible way, that we have a background of unsatisfactory work on their part, and it is in the light of these facts that we have refused to approve the Rathmines Council giving the contract to them.

The Rathmines Council, in their discussions and their letters, state that they are going to have this work done by Messrs. Grainger, and they are going to have this done because they have been advised by their expert advisers to have it so done. I want to suggest this, that some mentality in Rathmines has completely overawed and submerged their technical adviser, and that the technical adviser is not in a position to give plain and straight advice to them. They have put the telescope completely to their blind eye in this matter, and yet see visions of wonderful and competent firms laying mastic asphalt for miles all round the place. It is a most unsatisfactory way to have these matters dealt with. The last resolution in this matter was proposed by Mr. Ireland and seconded by Dr. Lynn:

"That the Rathmines Urban Council, having considered the tenders received for the reconstruction of Rathgar Road in mastic and sheet asphalt, hereby accept the tender of Messrs. Grainger Bros., dated June 21st, 1929, for the laying of mastic asphalt at 16/- per square yard, and 20/- per square yard for openings."

That resolution was passed by 13 votes to 3. For: Benson, Eyre, ffrench-Mullen, Hely, Ireland, Johnson, Kettle, Lynn, Metcalfe, Moloney, Sibthorpe, Culloch, and Whewell. Against: Gogan, Madigan and Mulvey.

The proposer is a person who has not been at a single meeting of the Rathmines Urban District Council since perhaps December last. This is a meeting held on the 23rd October. It is difficult to deal with every aspect of this particular matter.

Is the Minister aware that he has been ill?

The facts are that this matter has been moved by a member of the Council who has not been there since December last.

Because of ill-health.

I hope if he has been stung out of a sick bed to come in and defend public honour and probity in this matter by any of the remarks passed by the Rathmines District Council or any of the leaders of the "Irish Times" that his health will not suffer as a result. I do not think it is possible to add anything at this present moment.

I am glad the Minister has had an opportunity of making a full statement. The only remarks I regret he made are the concluding ones.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until Thursday, 31st October, 1929.

Top
Share