HC Deb 03 August 1891 vol 356 cc1137-8

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Cowen, late county surveyor of Mayo, changed the plans and specifications of Achill Viaduct so as to render the work much more difficult and costly to the contractor (Mr. Patrick Sweeney) than those laid down by the former county surveyor, Mr. Edward Glover, who originally drew up the said plans and specifications on which the contractor undertook the execution of the work; whether the contractor has been obliged to substitute steel for iron, of which it was originally intended to construct the bridge, and whether this entailed on him an expenditure of £300 additional; whether he had to sink foundation under the bed of the sea from 18 inches to 9 and 11 feet, which obliged him to execute 568 cubic yards of extra work in the foundation of the centre pier (which part of work was done for Board of Works) under bed of the channel, and that the Grand Jury of Mayo have allowed the contractor extra payment for extra work (£300), unanimously passing a resolution requesting the "Board of Works" to remunerate him for extra labour done on their part of the work; and whether consideration will be given to the contractor's claim for the extra expenditure imposed upon him by the changes made in the plans and specifications after his acceptance of the contract?


The matter referred to by the hon. Member is one for the Treasury rather than for the Irish Government.


Can the Secretary to the Treasury answer the question?


I have no objection to make inquiry into the matter; but I think I have already answered one or two questions with regard to it, and the information I have received is not quite in accord with that which has been supplied to the hon. Member. The Board of Works have considered the matter, and are of opinion that the contractor has no grievance. It is the county, however, that is responsible, and not the Board of Works.