asked the Minister for Education if he is aware that tenders were invited for the erection of a new school at Oldtown, County Dublin; that the latest date for receiving such tenders was the first week in March, 1945; that, subsequently, all necessary documents and plans in connection with the proposed new school were lodged by the manager with his Department; that in October, 1945, the Department requested the manager to lodge his share of the cost of the new school, which he did; that, by letter dated 7th May, 1946, the Department informed the manager that contracts had not yet been placed for the erection of the school; and if he will state the cause of the delay in this matter and also when contracts for the erection of the school will be placed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Erection of School at Oldtown (County Dublin).
I am aware of the facts of the case. Subsequent to the receipts of tenders in March, 1945, for the building of the new school by the Commissioners of Public Works it was found that the site offered by the manager and the plot of ground purchased by the diocesan trustees did not coincide and a fresh survey of the site by the Commissioners of Public Works became necessary. The preparation of the official lease was consequently delayed and, under the regulations for the building of national schools, a contract for building cannot be placed until the lease of the site has been executed.
The draft lease is in preparation at the moment and it is expected that it will be executed in a few weeks. I am advised that the contract will then be placed without delay. Tenders have already been received by the Commissioners of Public Works.
Can the Minister say how the confusion arose? My information is that the Minister's Department wrote to the manager and enclosed a map on which they marked the spot where the new school would be erected. Subsequently, the Minister's Department wrote to the manager asking him to forward a map and mark the site. If the Minister's Department informed the manager by marking on a map the particular site, I do not see—and the manager is quite unaware—how the confusion arose.
The position is that in the correspondence with the Land Commission last July, and subsequently, it transpired that the plot which had been obtained, the proposed site, was not identical with the plot covered by the purchase agreement. Neither the Board of Works nor the Department were aware of this until we received the information from the Land Commission. The position then was that the Board of Works had to make a fresh survey and I think the matter has now been completed.
The manager was not at fault.
The manager may not have been informed.
He was informed. I suggest he was not at fault.
The position is that a certain amount of leniency had been shown to managers who wished to build schools, but difficulties have arisen from time to time, actually when schools are in course of erection; it has been found in some cases that legal difficulties have arisen. We are now in the position that we have to insist that the legal title must be completed before any of the building work can be started. I think managers generally are not perhaps aware that that is now found to be strictly necessary and we have to enforce it. I cannot say that the manager was to blame in this matter, and neither can I say that the Department was to blame.
The manager in this case, at an early date, informed the Department that he had placed the full particulars with the solicitors and he subsequently forwarded copies of the legal documents to the Department and indicated to them that if any further difficulties arose they could communicate with the solicitors. I think in this case the manager did not require leniency. In every possible way he facilitated the Department.
I said inspectors generally. In any case, in November, 1945, we had to ask the Office of Public Works to furnish a fresh map.