asked the Minister for Finance whether his Department are aware of a breakdown in communications between the Office of Public Works and Dublin Corporation which resulted in an extra cost of £49,500 being borne by the taxpayer; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Department of Defence Dublin Site.
13.
It is not agreed that there was any breakdown in communications between the Office of Public Works and Dublin Corporation.
The position is that the Office of Public Works had expected, following consultation with Dublin Corporation, that a plot of ground sought as a site extension for the new headquarters building for the Department of Defence, would be made available following acquisition of adjoining lands by compulsory purchase order. The Office of Public Works were prepared to offer some areas of State ground in the vicinity in exchange for the plot sought. Subsequently, Dublin Corporation decided that, having regard to the acute housing shortage at the time, they could cede only a small portion of the ground in question. This development necessitated a redesign of the scheme for which fees were properly payable. A contributory factor was the space for road widening which was required by the corporation in connection with access to the proposed housing scheme.
Would the Minister indicate the grounds the OPW had for expecting the corporation so to act?
I did not hear the Deputy's question.
The Minister said the Board of Works had expected the corporation to take certain action. Was it simply that they hoped this would happen or had they a written committment from the corporation?
Indications had been, following discussions with Dublin Corporation, that such an extension would be available. The corporation were preparing to acquire the adjoining lands by compulsory purchase and in agreement with them it was decided to await the completion of the proceedings when they would be in a position to transfer an area of approximately one acre to the Commissioners. At that stage there was no question of paying any extra fees.
The Minister substituted the words "indications had been" for "had expected". What I want to know is whether there was any written commitment from the corporation or was this money spent without any written commitment, on a highly speculative basis, by the Board of Works?
I do not think so.
The Minister does not think what? What relevance has that to my question, or to which part of my question is the Minister supposed to be replying? Was there a written commitment from the corporation?
It is relevant to the fact that they were redesigning the scheme.
Did the OPW have chats with the corporation and was it on the basis of these chats that the money was spent?
There was written confirmation from the corporation.
It took a long time to extract that.
Is it not extraordinary that without having the matter fully clarified this sort of thing should have been entered into? Will there be a surcharge on anybody and, if so, on whom?
The amount was £49,500. That was the increased cost.
Does the Minister understand what a surcharge is?
Of course, I do.
Does the Minister know that somebody who gave the order to have the work carried out without proper authorisation could be held responsible for the payment back to the State of this money? Will he say whether somebody will be so surcharged and if not why not?
I do not think anybody will be surcharged.
So public money is public money and it is all right to throw it away.