asked the Minister for Finance what the average ratio is between the rent of new office accommodation leased by Government Departments within the past three years and the estimated cost of constructing these offices.
Ceisteanna—Questious. Oral Answers. - Office Accommodation.
15.
Because of the difficulty of evaluating factors such as site acquisition costs it is not possible to give a realistic reply to the Deputy's question. It has been estimated that the ratio between the average rent of new office accommodation leased for Government Departments during the past three years and the estimated cost of constructing an equivalent amount of space would roughly be 1:8. The estimate of construction cost does not include fees, etc., or site acquisition costs which could grossly affect the calculation of the ratio.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary seriously mean to say that he has rented accommodation without knowing the full cost or knowing whether the rent was reasonable?
The Deputy may realise that offices were built at different times when construction costs varied, the offices were of different quality and it would not be possible to hazard a guess regarding site acquisition costs.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary renting accommodation for the Government and paying rents without having a clue about how those rents relate to the cost of the buildings? It seems an incredible answer.
If I might say so, the question did not make much sense either.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary like to say what he means by that? He has given a straightforward, if extraordinary answer. We are renting accommodation on behalf of the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary has no idea of the relationship these rents bear to the total cost, including land acquisition.
I tried to give a straight answer to a crooked question. I told the Deputy that the relationship is one to eight.
We have no idea what we are paying——
Is the Deputy in favour of free enterprise and open competition? Does the Deputy favour State acquisition of all building lands and sites?
What has that to do with my question?
I cannot tell the Deputy how much sites will fetch tomorrow.
I want to know what they fetched yesterday. We do not know how much money is being thrown away on office rents. The rents may be totally exorbitant.
I dealt with this matter at some length when speaking on the Estimate for the Office of Public Works. The Deputy was not here then. Perhaps the Deputy might like to read what I said in the Official Report.
(Interruptions.)
16.
asked the Minister for Finance whether offices in Kildare Street, Dublin, built as a speculation by an English contractor have been leased by the Government; and, if so, whether he will give an assurance that the Government will not in future lease accommodation in respect of which Irish contractors have had no opportunity to tender for the construction work.
I presume that the building which the Deputy has in mind is that which is being built on the site of the former Church of Ireland Training College in Kildare Place. The arrangements for the acquisition of the building by the State have been dealt with by me already in reply to a question by Deputy M. O'Leary on the 5th November, 1969.
The developers, Kildare Properties Ltd., are bound to have the building constructed in accordance with approved plans and specification and it is their function to select the necessary contractors. I have no power to interfere in the selection.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether any Irish contractor was given an opportunity of tendering, and could he tell us what financial link, if any, there was between the developer and the contractor?
The Deputy was in the House when I explained in some detail that the main purpose for acquiring those premises was the security of the whole complex of the State buildings between Upper Merrion Street and Kildare Street, including Leinster House. I understand that the firm are members of the Irish Construction Industry Federation. The demolition and excavation works were carried out by Irish firms. Substantial portions of the contract will be handled by Irish firms who will carry out the work on structural beams, windows, electrical installations and other services. Apart from one or two key-men, all the labour employed is local labour.
The Parliamentary Secretary has answered questions I did not ask. I asked what financial link, if any, is there between the developer and the contractor? Which contractors were given the opportunity to tender for the work?
The State only entered into this matter when we understood that the property had been sold. Unlike Deputy FitzGerald, we are honest about these things. When speaking about Hume Street the Deputy did not mention that Fine Gael were trying to sell 16 Hume Street to the Green Property Company.
That is not true.
I even know the personal advice given to them by a member of An Taisce who sits on those benches over there. He gave this advice to his own committee before the protest started and before the Deputy came in here and tried to justify the illegal actions which took place subsequently.
It is not true that we tried to sell 16 Hume Street to the Green Property Company. I have no idea what the Deputy is talking about. I do not know what that is all about.
In the Fine Gael Party organisation there is a military gentleman among their members who knows what it is all about. I had this in my notes but I did not use it because I was trying to be fair to the Deputy, but if the Deputy is not fair to me I will use it. On two occasions Fine Gael tried to dispose of that property.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say in what way I am being unfair to him in asking him questions about matters under his responsibility? Is the Parliamentary Secretary being fair in not replying to these questions?
I tried to credit the Deputy with enough intelligence to remember what was discussed here six or eight months ago. If the Deputy does not remember, I am sorry.