Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will be parochial and return to what is driving efficiency in the State's footprint. This relates to the purchase of a site in Kanturk for a decentralised office and I am conscious that the advice is in respect of individuals. I reference correspondence, dated 21 May, sent by the private secretary to the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works to the then acting county manager. It states:

The Commissioners of Public Works advise me that discussions with the Council on the purchase of the site were on a "Without Prejudice / Subject to Contract" basis. As the Decentralisation Programme, in the context of which the site was identified, was cancelled on foot of a Government Decision, the Commissioners have further advised me that they have no current interest in the site and no contractual liability to [Cork County] Council.....

There is a substantial six figure sum at stake and the local authority is out of pocket.
I will read correspondence, dated November 2006, from an individual in the property management section of the OPW to the estates section of Cork County Council, which opens as follows:

Further to your recent discussions with [an individual in the OPW], we would be pleased if you could instruct the agent who is acting on your behalf to acquire the site for the Fire Station, to endeavour to acquire the adjacent lands on behalf of the Commissioners for Public Works.

Further correspondence, dated 7 December 2007, to the then county manager in Cork states, "The Commissioners are extremely anxious to advance this project in Kanturk". In any of the correspondence, until the letter from the Minister of State's private secretary, there was no reference to the local authority acting "Without Prejudice / Subject to Contract". This has only been invoked when the local authority has looked to be reimbursed for the funds it spent while acting on behalf of the Office of Public Works.
I opened my contribution by asking what were the protocols where the OPW acted in conjunction with others to acquire sites. In a way, what we are witnessing is bullying by the OPW of another State agency and I will tell Ms McGrath why I think that is so. Recently, there was a similar experience in Macroom where the OPW and the local authority were buying a site, by coincidence, for a fire station and where the OPW was acquiring a site for a Garda station. Fortunately, it is now over the line and the contracts have been signed. However, the local authority was being asked to subjugate its interest which, given its previous experience with the OPW, was quite unhappy to do in terms of protecting the funds it was putting into the project on behalf of local ratepayers, etc. It was being asked to act in good faith and trust that the OPW would not abuse its dominant position. It took the intervention of the Minister to ask the local authority to acquiesce. Does Ms McGrath accept that, given its experience, the local authority was so reluctant and that what manifests in Kanturk is an abuse of the OPW's dominant position?
I dealt with some of the officials along the chain when this matter was progressing through the OPW, most of whom were extremely courteous and helpful, but I did hit a road block where a senior official in the OPW had dumped on Cork County Council officials in a manner that I found most unacceptable.