I thank the Minister for remaining to deal with this issue. The Minister and I have soldiered long and hard on the question of primary school building. This must be a unique Adjournment debate matter on schools in that I am not seeking for any school to be built, extended or replaced. I am trying to deal with the Government's requirement of seeking value for money. After going through many issues I am focusing my attention on Scoil Árd Mhuire, Tallaght, Dublin, as an example of where money has been wasted, where it could have been saved and where standards have not been maintained. The Government and every Cabinet meeting is examining these matters.
I have a thick file on this school. I have written to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Committee of Public Accounts and the Minister on a number of occasions. I seek only a process and a structure. It is not about money. The money has been paid. No money is involved. However, nobody seems to want to know. The whole process needs forensic investigation. I refer to money being wasted, quality of work and payment being made for botched work. I refer to architects signing off on work which, the most basic examination would show, is not concluded and ready to be paid for. I refer to very one-sided contracts. Some €3 million to €4 million has been spent on this school in two lumps. The first time, the Office of Public Works did the work and there was no problem. The second time, up to €3 million was spent and it has been one problem after another for the school.
I will give the Minister an example, and this is what I want him to take from here. The school told me it was being forced by the Department to pay a builder although the school thought the builder should not be paid until the work was put right. I asked how much it was costing and the school said it was costing nothing. The school had the money from the Department in its bank account and could pay it tomorrow morning. Then I knew the school was not seeking money or trying to save itself any money but was coming to me in the public interest. I have dealt with this for the past four or five months. I asked for an example and I will tell the Minister the example the school gave, which I had checked.
There is no ventilation in the school's sewerage system. In a new school on which we spent €3 million there is a build-up of methane. It could explode, and the architect has signed off on it. I can give more examples and I can show the whole file if anybody is interested in it. Eventually the Department said the terms of the contract were such that once the architect signed off on the project, the contractual requirement was that the builder be paid. I said to the school and the Department that the work surely has to be up to standard. The answer to that is that once the architect says it is up to standard, it is up to standard and the money must be paid or the school could find itself at the end of litigation. The school was forced to pay the builder for work which the board of management, school principal and parents association all said was wrong. They had a list of things they wanted done.
I asked about the tender document because I saw a coincidence of names between the quantity surveyor and the person who got the building contract. I do not know this to be the case. I raised it with the Minister but got no further with whether they were related. I am not convinced that the opening of the tender documents complied with the public sector governance requirements in that area. However, I would be happy to be corrected on that.
I raised an issue related to this during Private Members' time. The Government amended the motion and put in a requirement for energy savings. These included things like energy light bulbs, dual flush toilets, sensor lights in areas not in constant use, controlled water taps and so on. However, none of those things was done. When the Government states there is a need for these things, it still pays for not having them done.
There were also cost problems. The builder was charging the school €28,000 for changing the main electric cable in the area. The school management referred the matter to the ESB, which stated it would cost €700, yet €28,000 was paid to the builder. That is one example of many costs that the school has questioned. The OPW finished its work two years ago, and since the new builder came in and concluded his work, the school has lost its intercom, its lockable doors and its security fencing. I recall the Minister of State making a strong representation many years ago for his own school for security fencing, so he knows what I am talking about. We got that security fencing for his school on that occasion. This school had security fencing, but two sections were taken out and there have been three break-ins since. There are no window blinds in the school, which might sound like a small thing, but teachers know what it is like with the sun coming in through the windows.
I raise this issue in utter frustration. I am not looking for money; I only want this done properly. I will take this to an bord snip as well. I think the school building section of the Department of Education and Science should be closed and local authorities should build schools. We would not have had the problems that occurred in Dublin 15 and in north Dublin if local authorities dealt with school buildings in their county development plan. Even though there is a planning section in the school building section of the Department, I could not find any evidence of any presentation being made by the Department on the county development plan of any local authority. What are we doing?
For the case of the school that I have raised, I ask that the Department carry out a forensic examination of how this thing went from point A to point B. There is no money involved. I want us to be satisfied that this is the way it works, but people could not be happy with it. I could spend an hour and a half reading from my file, but I will not do that. I am dealing with a very diligent principal and staff and a committed, responsible school board of management. Just like the school of the Minister of State, they are really interested in their locality, but are absolutely frustrated at the waste of money involved. They are frustrated that they are being tied into a contract that does not deliver that to which the taxpayer and the Government are entitled. I cannot get any movement on it, and that is the issue for me.
