I want to thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to raise this issue and for confirming that persistence does pay in the end.
A serous situation has arisen with regard to Saint Helen's Senior National School in Portmarnock. The local parish priest, Fr. Brendan Heffernan, has received a civil bill from the contractors who built that school in 1985, John Whelan Limited and he has been asked to enter an appearance in the court to say why he should not pay the outstanding moneys to Mr. Whelan. The amount is £13,118.16. The parish priest has now been forced into taking on a solicitor and entering an appearance against this claim and at the same time he has joined the Department of Education with him in this court appearance for which as yet no date has been set.
Saint Helen's Senior National School is a national school in Portmarnock with 599 pupils and one special education class. When the school was built in 1985 it was very special in the locality of Malahide and Portmarnock because it was the first ever facility provided for special education for junior pupils. The school was put out to tender. An architect was taken on board and plans were prepared. The project was approved and the contract awarded to John Whelan Limited by the Department of Education; they were the lower tenderer at the time. Part of the approval for the go ahead for the commencement of this project involved the immediate upfront payment by the school of £87,000 which was what is called the local contribution, representing one-tenth of the cost of the project. On top of this £87,000 an agreement was reached with the Department of Education that the school could extend the general purposes room provided they themselves found the additional money. That was estimated to be approximately £32,000. So, on top of the £87,000 the local contribution was another £32,000 to allow for the extension to the general purposes room. The reason I am making this clear is out of fear that at some stage the Minister might tell me that these outstanding moneys had anything to do with that general purposes extension. It does not and the school authorities have told me that they paid that money to the builder.
The school was occupied in June 1985 and, sometime afterwards, the architects final certificate was lodged with the Department. It indicated, among other things, that the project had been very cost effective. The Department did not query anything on the final certificate. In fact, they made two substantial payments to the school authorities who, in turn, paid off some of the outstanding bills. For the next year or so the Department continued to pay off small amounts of the outstanding moneys. Problems arose when the Department in 1987 or early 1988 sent their inspector to make what could be described as the final inspection of the school. A list of minor repairs needed in the mechanical and electrical areas was prepared by the Department's inspector. The Department wrote to the priest who was dealing with the matter, Fr. Lloyd, detailing the works that needed to be carried out before the final payment would be made. The final paragraph of that letter stated that a sum equal to the outstanding works, estimated at between £2,500 and £3,000, would be withheld until such time as the Department were satisfied that the works had been completed.
When the school authorities approached the contractor, and the sub-contractors to have those defects remedied neither the contractor nor the sub-contractors would undertake the work because they were owed money. At that stage the architect was owed £6,000, the structural engineers were owed £2,564 and the quantity surveyor was also owed money. The building was owed £13,000. The local priest had been in touch with the Department telling them about the hiccup and he asked if money would be paid towards those bills so that the work could be completed. It was very embarrassing and stressful for him last year when the contractor, and sub-contractors, telephoned him and wrote to him demanding payment. They made allegations about non-payment in the matter.
Rev. Fr. Heffernan wrote to the Minister in March this year and I tabled a question on the issue in that month. The parish priest wrote a cordial letter to the Minister and gave details of the outstanding debts on the school and on the other national school in Portmarnock, St. Marnock's which the Minister opened. However, the parish priest did not receive an acknowledgment from the Department. In the reply to my question on 21 March the Minister indicated that there was a small amount of money outstanding and that the file would be examined with a view to paying the balance of the grant due to the school authorities at the earliest possible date. I assumed that that meant that an official was working on the file but when I contacted the priest about six weeks later he told me that the Department had not been in touch with him and he had not received an acknowledgment of his letter.
On 22 May the parish priest wrote to the Minister informing her that a civil bill had been served on him and that it was his intention to join the Department of Education in the action. As he stated in his letter, "the Department of Education will be in the dock with me". Will the Minister agree, that at no stage did the Department raise any query about outstanding payments? When the final certificate from the architect was submitted the Department did not say there was a dispute involved or that the amount was too high. The school authorities were not given the impression that the money might not be paid. The local contribution has been paid and, as far as the school management is concerned, the Department owe the money to the contractor who, in turn, is being sued by sub-contractors who have not been paid. If there is a problem about the money owed to the contractor why is it that it has not been raised with the parish priest in an effort to sort the matter out? It is surprising that there was no response to the letter from the priest and that my question did not stimulate action from the Department. The Minister, and her Department, may end up in the dock with the parish priest and I should like to appeal to her to pay the amount of money owed and finish the deal. The school was completed five years ago.
