Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Dec 1986

Vol. 115 No. 4

Seanad Chamber Repairs

I have something here from the Office of Public Works with regard to the rapairs. It reads:

Following extensive opening up of the fabric of the building from first to attic floor level and as a result of detailed survey and calculations by our structural engineers we are advised that the faults are of a more complex character than originally feared. It is futile to attempt to stabilize the existing walls and beams as we had hoped.

The engineers recommend the following programmed approach to tackle the problem:-

1. Provide temporary support for massive timber roof trusses.

2. Repair the trusses.

3. Demolish a large part of the north gable over chamber recess.

4. Provide new beam and walling over demolished north gable in the vicinity of the attic space.

5. Re-build the damaged gable wall.

6. Repair ceiling timbers.

7. Reinstate decorative plaster work.

8. Redecorate the entire chamber.

The engineers are currently engaged in preparation of detailed plans and documentation to enable execution of the reconstruction and repair works. They will supply a breakdown of time scales and costings and the OPW will make these available to Seanad Members.

The reconstruction work will have to be done mainly by a specialised contractor. If he is to have the work completed by October, 1987, he will be required to work after hours and at weekends as well as on those weekdays when the Seanad is not in session. The cost of the overtime will be written into the contract. On top of this, there will be extra hours to be worked by Leinster House supervisory and security staff but, of course, until the details are received from the Structural Engineers it is too early to give you definite information as to what is required in this report.

I told Members of the Seanad that I would keep them informed of the position and that we would have the report this week. We have it and that is the situation.

Does this report imply that it will be finished by October 1987, or is it just a statement of intention?

That is my interpretation of it but you have a copy of it and you can read it.

Is it a guarantee?

A back-sliding exercise, is it?

I thank you for keeping you word to Members of the House to bring in a report from the Office of Public Works on progress in relation to the repair of the Seanad ceiling. From having listened to you reading the report and having read it, it would appear to me that, in addition to replastering the roof or part of the roof, there is some little bit of a hole to be knocked in the wall and to be rebuilt. I am glad to see that a specialist contractor is being brought in because despite all the verbiage in this document that is what it amounts to — a piece of a wall is to be taken out, straightened and rebuilt. I am confident enough that if a competent contractor is brought in this piece of gable that has to be rebuilt should not take too long.

It is not a competent contractor; it is an OPW contractor.

I thought it was a specialist contractor who was coming in.

He is employed by the OPW.

My interpretation of it is the same as Senator Howard's.

In view of the conflict, because it could be a very significant one, perhaps the Cathaoirleach will resolve by next week the question as to whether it is an independent competent contractor or whether it is an OPW contractor. I am reasonably satisfied with the bit of progress that has been made.

I thank you for this report which was laid before us this morning. This is dangerous because any time you open your mouth about it now you could well be in trouble. It is lovely that if the PDs or somebody else do not decide to get rid of the Seanad, the OPW are going to knock the side wall down and shift us anyway.

As to the time scale, my colleague from Clare or perhaps it was Senator Ross, asked you a question you could not possibly answer about October, 1987. There is no way we will be back in the old Seanad, whether it be by the votes of our sensible electorate or any other way, by October 1987. I am one of the people who have shown deep concern about this. I did not climb to the rafters yesterday evening but I climbed at an earlier stage when there seemed to be only a small crack. Indeed, on that trip up the ladder I had with me OPW experts and geniuses and all those people who knew what they were at, or thought they knew what they were at. Senator O'Leary was with me and he is a sensible man. He thought they knew what they were at that evening too.

Now we find ourselves in this chamber for two to three years — I do not know how many. We, the Senators, should show our concern. I do not mean that in a derogatory way about any Senators who have not shown their concern because everybody is concerned. I wonder about the extent of this damage. I know it is here before me in print this morning and I have to listen to the experts who have now found a lot more trouble there and a lot more damage, and walls etc. have to be removed. Of course you have the cost of all this.

I do not like this chamber that I am in. I like being in the Seanad but I do not like the room I am in. There are extra hours for supervisory and security staff to be covered. There is no way we will be in the old Chamber by October 1987. We will be there by election, but we will not be there by the men in the OPW. I have the same respect for the OPW that everybody else has, but I am deeply concerned about the extent of the work they have now laid before us which has to be done. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his concern and for the report before us today.

I went to the top of the trusses yesterday. I had seen the lower part of them before. I am satisfied that the amount of work proposed to be done — whatever about the time scale — needs to be done. If Senators had not drawn attention to this extremely dangerous crack it is obvious that the wall would have collapsed. If we are to thank ourselves at all we should thank ourselves for drawing attention to the defects in the wall particularly over the Cathaoirleach's recess. Having seen the work yesterday at the highest level, it is obvious that it is a major job and whether it is enginered by the Office of Public Works or directed by them it needs experts. I am sure we have them in the Office of Public Works but they are talking about having further expertise available to them.

The most important thing is that whatever is done is done properly, so that the finished job will be something we can all be proud of. There is no point in doing a botched job now, plastering over it and having it collapse in ten years' time. There is a responsibility on us — and it is accepted by the OPW — to have it done correctly and as quickly as possible. If we want it before the end of October 1987, which we all do, it means that these people will have to work outside the sitting hours of the House. This House is sitting more often and for longer periods so the amount of time available to them is more restricted. That is the dichotomy in the problem we have. It is a good report and I want to thank the Cathaoirleach for bringing it in and affording us the opportunity to see it at first hand and to compliment the OPW on the effort they are making to have the job done correctly. Anyone who does not know what is to be done could not be forgiven.

Yesterday was the first time the Senator went up there.

No. This is the fourth time I have seen the work. I am sorry Senator Honan was not with us yesterday at the upper extremes of the House where she would have seen the level of the work that needs to be done. It is a big job and it has to be done properly because we have responsibilities.

I do not share the concern of other people about the condition of the House. My only concern is that I be reelected to the House.

Are we in the real world at all? Was it not in July 1985 that the Office of Public Works took control of this property? Are we really saying that between July 1985 and now — never mind what is going to happen in the future — all the Office of Public Works have done is to assess the problem? Is there any indication that they have done anything other than assess the problem between July 1985 and December 1986? The thing is daft. I will not be a party to congratulating them on anything because not only is it beginning to look as if those of us who will not be in the next Seanad will not be in the Chamber, but those of us who will be elected will never meet in the Chamber even if the Government selected last for a full four or five years. In a period of one year and a half they have now succeeded in assessing the problem. It is no wonder we are the way we are.

Hear, hear.

Top
Share