Vol. 364 No. 5
asked the Minister for Education the number of schools built since 1970 which have since been found to have serious structural defects; if his Department have investigated these buildings and can explain the situation; if any estimate is available as to the repair andor replacement cost in these schools; if any action has been taken against builders or architects; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
22.
asked the Minister for Education if his Department are aware of the serious structural and allied problems in schools (details supplied) in the Dublin 13 area which have resulted in the closure of one of these schools recently and are likely to lead to the closure of another in the very near future; if his Department have assessed the hazards to the schoolchildren and staff; and if he will allocate the necessary funds to allow essential remedial work to commence immediately.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 22 together.
As regards post-primary schools, my Department have been involved in the financing or grant-aiding of approximately 600 capital building projects at post-primary schools which were completed in the period in question. There have been four cases among those where serious structural defects have come to light.
In three of these cases the defects have been remedied at no additional cost to the Department or school authorities concerned. In the other case the private school authority concerned were advised by the Department in 1981 to take legal advice on the prospect of successfully obtaining legal redress. The Department have received no further communication in the matter. No expenditure in respect of remedying the defects has been incurred by my Department.
The position with regard to national schools is that my Department does not maintain a register of applications by reference specifically to structural defects. I have, however, had an investigation carried out by my Department's Primary Buildings Branch, and eight applications have been noted in respect of defects of the type which I believe the Deputy to have in mind in Question No. 9 and which have occurred in schools built since 1970 with grant assistance from my Department.
The position with regard to two of these schools has been dealt with at some length in the reply given on 30 January 1986 to Deputy Manning's question about two schools in the Dublin 5 area, and I do not think it necessary to repeat what was said on that occasion.
An application for grant assistance in the case of the four schools referred to in Question No. 22 is under investigation and my Department await submission by the school authorities of detailed reports which are being prepared by the schools' professional advisers.
My Department in 1984 paid a grant towards the cost of rebuilding a portion of a wall in a national school in Dublin 7. The collapse had been found on investigation to have been caused by the use of an incorrect type of wall-tie between the school building's inner block wall and its outer brick wall. The school was unable to take action against the builders as the firm in question had gone into liquidation. No design fault could be imputed to the professional team which designed the building.
The eighth case occurred in a County Wexford school built in 1972. The circumstances were similar to those which obtained in the Dublin 5 schools referred to, where there was a potentially dangerous roof defect. This defect was not the result of neglect to maintain the premises, having arisen from a feature which was an accepted form of construction at the relevant time.
As regards the cost in respect of which grants have been paid, it is not my Department's practice to divulge the financial details in individual cases. I am, however, in a position to say that the total cost of works in the projects in question came to £175,000 approximately, portion of which sum was paid by the school authorities themselves.
To put the matter in perspective, the Deputies may wish to note that since 1970 my Department have grant-aided a total of 1,379 new schools and major extensions, involving a total grant expenditure of £251 million.
The Minister said he was awaiting detailed technical reports from the management. Would he clarify that in view of the information given to me, and to others, that detailed technical reports on the condition of the schools — the roofing, lack of insulation and so on — have already been submitted to his Department.
The provision of new covering to roofs in schools has been deemed as not being structural and therefore has been excluded from consideration of the costs. To be specific in relation to the information given in reply to the Deputy's question, the manager submitted an independent architect's assessment of the cost of remedying the defects but the Department have asked that a report be submitted from one of the original design team and they are still awaiting it.
Given the legal implications for the original design team, given the inaccessibility of the original design team to the management board, and given the likely litigation that might follow, would the Minister not accept that it is next to impossible for the board of management and the community in this area to hope to get one single syllable of a response from the design team? They have made several efforts to obtain a response but to date they have got nothing. I take it the Department have the engineers' structural report in relation to the community hall. If what we hear from these technical experts is true— and I do not think anyone in the area has any reason to disbelieve them because we are not technical people and we depend on them — that this hall is in a very dangerous condition and could collapse, would the Minister accept first, that there will be no response from the design team and, second, that his Department must come up with the necessary finance to remedy this dangerous situation?
I am aware of the Deputy's concern. I am following up, through the Department, the request to the original design team. I too am concerned about this building and I am prepared to discuss the difficulties which have arisen with Deputy Manning and Deputy L. Fitzgerald.
I accept that Deputy Manning and I can have an early meeting with the Minister of State on this matter.
Does the Minister think it is fair that the Department should follow a policy where there is no way these schools can be further grant-aided when structural damage occurs? I think one of the schools the Minister has in mind is in my constituency, and the Department are not prepared to give further grant aid when a problem arises.
The information I have is that the provision of new covering to roofs in schools is not deemed as being structural but, if Deputy Farrelly has a particular case in mind, he might bring it to the notice of the Department.
