§ DR. COMMINSI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, (1) whether any legal proceedings were taken by the Board of Works against the sureties of the original contractor for Kinsale Pier, who failed to carry out his contract; 959 and, if so, whether there was anything realised by such proceedings; was the sum of £2,231 lost by such failure an estimated loss, or a loss made up of several items; and, if the latter, what were the several items of such loss; (2) whether the additional sum of £821 charged for additional works was paid to such original contractor or to the second contractor, and at what stage of the progress of the work were such additional works found to be required and authorised by the Board of Works; (3) what amount had been paid to the original contractor when he retired from the contract, and what the value of the work done by him before such retirement or the cessation of work by him; and, did he throw up the contract and refuse to proceed with it, or retire upon terms allowed by the Board of Works; and, (4) if the latter, what were the terms upon which he was allowed to retire?
§ MR. HANBURYThe original contract was not secured by sureties but by provision for retentions. There were, therefore, no such proceedings as the hon. Member refers to in the first paragraph. No portion of the payments was retained, as undoubtedly ought to have been done; the figure of £2,231 representing the loss arising from the failure of the original contractor is the difference (after deducting expenditure on extras) between the amount of the original contract, and the ultimate cost of the work done. It is not arrived at by the addition of several items. All the payments for additional work were made to the second contractor. These works were authorised as the necessity of each became apparent during the progress of the second contract. The amount paid the original contractor was £1,115. The value of the work done by him up to the determination of his contract was £1,179. The Board, on the determination of the contract, seized and appropriated to the work plant belonging to the contractor to the value of £919 4s. 11d. The original contractor did not throw up or retire from the contract. The contract was determined by the Board of Works (July 1884) in consequence of his failure to proceed with it through financial difficulties which subsequently resulted in bankruptcy. No terms were allowed him by the Board on the determination of the contract. He 960 subsequently (16th June 1887) pressed for some allowance of the plant seized by the Board, but this was refused.