Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Recommital is necessary in respect of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 as they do not arise out of Committee prodeedings.
Dormant Accounts Bill, 2001 [ Seanad ] : Report and Final Stages.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
"(b) in the case of a deposit or fixed deposit, encashment or partial encashment by the account holder, and”.
The suggested amendment provides for the type of transaction relevant under this legislation for fixed deposits. These instruments were only provided for in the Bill at a later stage when it came to my attention that they properly came within the ambit of the scheme.
The proposed amendment to section 9(2) will authorise the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, in consultation with the Central Bank and subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance, to amend the definition of transaction provided for in the section. Once a feel for the scheme has been achieved, it should become clear whether the types of transaction provided for are adequate from the perspective of the account holder. Given the dynamic nature of the financial services sector, new types of transaction may come into being which are not currently experienced or envisaged. For the sake of consumer protection, as provided for in section 9(3)(f2>b), this amendment is necessitated by the spirit of the legislation so we do all we can to reunite people with their money.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, line 7, to delete "maturity date" and substitute "expiration of the initial term".
Can the Minister briefly explain what amendment No. 2 involves? I think I understand it but I would like a clearer outline.
The suggested amendment provides, in the case of savings bonds, savings certificate and instalment savings schemes, that the 15 year period of dormancy will commence on the date in each case that the product was first due for encashment by the holder. It is often the case that these savings products are rolled over when not encashed by the holder. Each of the products can be issued for terms of five, ten, 15 years, and so on, but can be rolled over after that period has expired. If, for example, the bond first became due for encashment by the holder five years to the date of issuance and was not encashed, the period of dormancy runs for the period of those five years.
: I thank the Minister for that. I can see what he is getting at. A savings account often matures over ten or 15 years and the provisions of the Dormant Account Bill are being extended to cover a further 15 years after the end of that period. Many of these accounts are held by people who are very mature and in many cases 30 years will have elapsed between investment and consideration of the account as dormant. How will provision be made so that institutions contact account holders to ensure they know the accounts are there? Given the 15 years already provided for, and the 15 under this Bill, the likelihood is that the persons in question will be the inheritors of estates. Is there not a danger the investors will miss out because the time involved is so lengthy? Do we have a guarantee the institutions concerned must make efforts to ensure the people concerned know the product is there and are kept up to date?
At the moment banks avoid having to send statements and if there is no activity in an account they will be happy not to send any reminder at all. Should there not be an onus on those institutions to keep people informed as to what is happening? If there has not been a response from the account holder, they might be required to send a registered letter or something similar by way of second, third or fourth notice to ensure a real effort is being made to bring together the owner of the money or person legally entitled to it and the funds in the account.
I can speak from a small amount of personal experience of savings bonds. Deputy McGrath is right to say that people put in savings bonds for a period of five, ten or 15 years and there is an attractive rate of interest. It was the most attractive rate in the market some years ago and the other institutions used to complain about it. When that period is up the institution writes out with the value of the certificate then, asking if the customer wants to leave it roll over and have it renewed every six months. The customer is not asked to write back; if they do not hear from the customer it is assumed that he or she wants to keep the money rolled over.
In that sense there could be something similar to the case Deputy McGrath spoke about. A person could deposit money for five years but he could die after three years and his estate might not know about the money in savings certificates, which could be left there. After five years a letter would go to the address but if nobody opened the envelope, according to this amendment, the period of dormancy would then apply from the end of the first period. The technology might not have existed 15 years ago to enable institutions to write out as frequently. If a person put in the money in 1975 and has long passed to his eternal reward, the money is still being rolled on in the NTMA on behalf of An Post, the 15 years would now be up and it would have to have regard to that and go about finding the depositor. He would not reply and the money would be restricted to the State. I put down this amendment to get over that potential problem. Deputy McGrath raised the matter of banks not writing to customers and we can deal with that later.
The reason the Labour Party is not represented and that Deputy McDowell has tabled no amendments is that he is attending the funeral of the late Michael Moynihan and consequently withdrew his amendments late yesterday evening. He put down a number of Report Stage amendments which he intended to revisit and one I said I would accept subject to checking related to obliging banks and institutions to send customers an account statement or some other reminder once a year, which seemed a good idea to me. He had a figure of 30 in his Committee Stage amendment but I felt that as we had 100 everywhere in the Bill I might make it 100 and that I would look at this, saying I accepted it in principle.
When we found out late yesterday evening that events had overtaken us I informed Deputy McDowell that I would consider his suggestions and report back on the issue. Since speaking to Deputy McDowell I am pleased that my officials have informed me that my Department has finalised the consultation process with the Central Bank which has resulted in the imposition of a new statutory code of practice for licensed credit institutions which was only finalised last week. The code of practice contains standards of good banking practice which are to be followed by all credit institutions. This may not be known to all the institutions and may not be a pleasant surprise for them.
Point No. 7 of the code states that a credit institution shall ensure, in providing its banking service to customers, that it issues statements on all accounts held at least on an annual basis unless otherwise agreed with the customer. It goes on to state that principle No. 7 only applies to accounts held in the bank with a balance in excess of 20 – which is even lower than Deputy McDowell's suggestion and a lot lower than mine – but does not apply to non-correspondence accounts. The implementation date of the code is 1 July 2001, this Sunday, at which time credit institutions will be allowed six months to implement any necessary changes to procedures and controls. Members will agree that this is a welcome development in the banking sector and that we are going further down the road we have begun with this Bill in reuniting customers with their money.
When I accepted the principle behind Deputy McDowell's amendment I suggested a 100 limit, while he suggested 30, but then we found out last week that the Central Bank had agreed to a statutory code providing that the bank will have to send one a statement for any account with a balance of more than 20, which may come as a pleasant surprise to the financial institutions. I am therefore not putting down the amendment I intended to encompass the principles of Deputy McDowell's amendment as there is no need and I will write to him in that regard. Events have overtaken us and the figure is much lower than I intended. This should take care of Deputy McGrath's point about banks not keeping in contact with their customers and not bothering to send statements if there is no activity in the account. However, I get statements from a bank in which I have a current account I have not used for 25 years; my balance is 51p. Maybe that is a new practice on the part of that bank.
Mr. McGrath: I thank the Minister for that. This is a welcome development and the Minister might use his good offices to issue a statement to the press in this regard. This will be of great interest to customers.
It might not be appreciated by the institutions.
It will not be appreciated and they will give out as it will cost them a good few pounds but so what? They are doing remarkably well out of those accounts. I am glad the lower limit has been brought down to 20 or £16. That is only right particularly when one looks at the number of dormant accounts there are. The average dormant account has £150 in it. This is a welcome development and perhaps the Minister might circulate a copy of the letter.
I will send a copy of the letter to the Deputy.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments reported.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 10, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
"(c) the transaction, as defined in section 2(1), required to be effected in relation to an account for the purposes of this Act;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 arises out of Committee Stage and amendment No. 5 is related. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are to be taken together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 11, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
"(d) that the account holder is entitled, subject to this Act, to claim repayment of the moneys in the account from the institution concerned;”.
I suggested this amendment in order to provide clarity to account holders who received notification from their bank or building society that the account in question is dormant. Advising institutions to inform the account holder that there is a right of reclaim under this legislation, this should provide further reassurance to customers. If this amendment is accepted I suggest a similar amendment to section 11, which provides for similar measures related to public notices to account holders.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 12, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(e) that account holders are entitled, subject to this Act, to claim repayment of the moneys in dormant accounts from the institution concerned;”.
As I mentioned in relation to the previous amendment to section 10, this amendment will provide reassurance to holders of dormant accounts who are notified by general advertisements in the national press that there is a guaranteed right of reclaim to their moneys under this legislation. This issue was raised on Committee Stage – that people would get scared that the State would run off with their money. People sometimes do not activate accounts for very good reasons; some older people may put excessive money aside for funeral expenses and leave it in an account for many years. Technically it would be a customer initiated transaction so when the bank writes to them we thought it would be a good idea that this would be mentioned.
Arising from that, will a standard letter go out or will each institution formulate its own letter? The Minister mentioned the Central Bank bringing forward a protocol in relation to informing account holders. I wonder if a standard type letter could go out. Sometimes, the letters that go out from financial institutions can create all sorts of impressions. There should be a requirement that the letter states clearly that the money belongs to the customer, is in their account and that the financial institution is required by law to inform the customer about that money. The letter should explain that if the customer does not instruct the bank on how to deal with the money, it may be put into a dormant account fund. We do not want people racing into politicians' clinics complaining about terrible letters they have received from banks. Perhaps guidelines on the type of letter to be sent should be drawn up. It should be in plain English – which may be a problem with some financial institutions – so that ordinary people can understand it.
The Act specifies certain things that financial institutions will have to refer to. It sets out clearly the notification procedures. However, it will be left up to each institution to format their own letter. Some may use the letter as a marketing tool, and some may have a better letter than others. Usually these institutions agree among themselves a form of standardised letter. The Act specifies certain things that will have to be in the letter. After that it is up to the institutions. Section 10 sets out the obligations of the institutions in relation to notifying holders of dormant accounts. It is likely that they will come together to work out a format. They will put in what is required and perhaps additional information intended to make a particular institution attractive.
Will there not be a danger that when a person receives a voluminous letter, they will read only the first paragraph?
If it is too long, that is what people will do.
Exactly. In that way, the institutions may well help this dormant accounts fund to grow. People will throw away the letter and not do anything about it. It will be important that the letter states clearly that the money belongs to the customer and that they can retain it. It should only be in the event of non-response that it will revert to this account. The institutions will have to think out their strategy well.
We meet on a formal and informal basis with the Irish Bankers Federation. I will bring that to their attention. We will have plenty of time before April 2002 to do this.
I remind the Minister and the Deputy that this is Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 12, line 30, before "displayed", to insert "permanently".
The suggested amendment provides that the public notice which will give information to customers about the dormant account scheme must be displayed at all times in all credit institutions coming within the ambit of the legislation. That is the purpose of the insertion of "permanently."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 19, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
"(5) Any interest received by the agency in respect of moneys invested by way of deposit with a credit institution under subsection (3)(b) shall, for the purposes of Chapter 4 of Part 8 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997, be deemed to be beneficially owned by the agency.".
The suggested amendment provides that moneys in the fund are invested by the NTMA with the credit institutions. Any interest accruing on those will not be liable for DIRT. Chapter 4 of Part 8 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997, is a chapter relating to DIRT. Without this qualification to section 18, moneys placed on deposit with a bank by the NTMA would be liable to DIRT. The interest which the moneys will attract is deemed to be beneficially owned by the agency. There is already a provision in the tax code at 256(1) that such interest is exempt from DIRT.
That is a good move. I support the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 is consequential on amendment No. 8. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 19, line 24, after "person" to insert "(in this section referred to as the 'claimant')".
The suggested amendment makes the section easier to read. Instead of referring to a "person" may claim, we have changed this so that a person claiming a refund is referred to as the "claimant."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 19, to delete line 31 and substitute "(3) Where a claimant".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 10.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 19, to delete lines 35 to 43, and in page 20, to delete lines 1 to 7 and substitute the following:
"notify the Agency, in writing, of–
(a) the amount of the moneys transferred to the Fund under section 12, and
(b) the amount of any accrued interest on those moneys for the period commencing on the day on which the moneys were transferred to the Fund under section 12 and ending on the twenty-first day after the date of notification to the Agency under this subsection,
and the Agency shall pay to the institution, within 21 days after the date of the notification, the total of the amounts specified in paragraphs (a) and (b).
(4) Within 7 days of the receipt of payment under subsection (3), an institution shall–
(a) subject to the deduction of any charges that may lawfully be withheld by the institution, pay to the claimant the total of –
(i) the amount of moneys referred to in subsection (3)(a),
(ii) the amount of any accrued interest referred to in subsection (3)(a), and
(iii) any further interest that accrues in respect of the amounts referred to in subsection (3)(a) and (b) for the period commencing on the twenty-second day after the date of the notification to the Agency under subsection (3) and ending on the date of payment to the claimant;
and
(b) provide to the claimant, in writing, a statement of account.".
This amendment is necessitated as a part of the general amendment to section 19. It provides that in the case of reclaims of funds, a once-off calculation of DIRT in respect of those claims shall be made. Banks and building societies will be required to bring all accounts up-to-date vis-à-vis DIRT prior to transferring moneys from accounts to the fund. However, should a claimant come forward at a later date – and this could be a long time into the future – it would prove an onerous task for the institutions to have to calculate DIRT liability on these moneys.
Currently, DIRT liability on money standing to the credit of the account is calculated on a monthly basis and automatically. Clearly, if those moneys are no longer with the institution the automatic calculation cannot take place. Balancing the administrative burden already being placed on the institutions against a likelihood of reclaims being made, and the expected small revenue due from such reclaims, I have decided in consultation with the Office of the Revenue Commissioners that in calculating what is due back to a claimant, institutions can calculate the DIRT liability based on the rate applicable on the date of repayment to the account holder, which would satisfy the full and final DIRT payment due.
I will give an example that I hope will not complicate matters. A Mr. Brown has £2,000 in a bank deposit account, subject to DIRT which is calculated every month. The Revenue Commissioners get their money from the bank every year. This becomes a dormant account when Mr. Brown dies. Nobody knows he has the money in the bank. It is eventually sent to the NTMA and comes into the dormant accounts fund. Many years later, a Mr. McGrath from Westmeath discovers that his late grand-uncle Mr. Brown, who died 25 years ago, had a lot of money in the bank in Mullingar. Mr. McGrath is the only surviving relative and should get this money.
Under existing law, Mr. McGrath will have the money paid back to him. However, as the money was in a DIRT-liable account, the bank is obliged to work out the DIRT. They would have to go back many years and calculate the DIRT for every month. That is onerous and this amendment means that whatever interest is earned while the money is with the NTMA will have DIRT applied on it at the current rate. The DIRT will be deducted from the interest and Mr. McGrath will get the remainder. That is the purpose of this amendment.
That is a good and practical way to proceed. I support that. A thought crossed my mind while the Minister was speaking. Since the beneficial owner of these accounts can come forward at a later date and is entitled to get the money back, will this create difficulties for the dormant account fund? If there was £1 million in that fund and the fund wants to spend that on various worthwhile projects – I see that the Minister is accepting our sentiments on what should happen to the money in a later amendment – will the fund have to hold a certain percentage of that money in reserve for the rainy day when reclaimants appear having found long lost uncles whose money was taken from them? Will that stifle the way the fund can spend the money? Will a certain percentage of that money be held in reserve for the rainy days on which the McGraths, the Beltons and the McCreevys appear, having discovered long lost uncles whose money was taken from them, to seek recompense? Will the need to create a reserve stifle the way in which the board can expend the moneys in the fund? I know that those responsible for administering the fund will be extremely competent financial experts but we do not want a large amount of money being retained in what could be termed a "burial" fund for the purpose of paying claims made by people who resurface. Would it be possible to provide a bond under which moneys could be paid out by the Exchequer, if necessary, rather than freezing the money in the fund?
My concerns about this matter were triggered during a recent conversation with members of an Irish missionary order. The founding fathers of the order included in its rules and regulations a proviso that an extremely large back-up fund would be created which could be used if its flow of cash dried up. However, more enlightened members of the order eventually emerged and stated that a missionary organisation should not hold £1 million or £2 million and that such money should be spent on good causes. In that context, what percentage of the moneys in the fund, when it is created, will be held in reserve in the event of people emerging to make claims? Holding 50% of the moneys in reserve would destroy the intention behind the fund. Would it be possible for the board to take out an insurance bond which would cover any possible liabilities that might arise or would it be acceptable for the Exchequer to provide a letter of comfort to the effect that it would cover such liabilities?
We do not want to see the moneys in the fund tied up because of red tape; they must be spent on worthwhile projects. I am concerned that some of the moneys in the fund may be frozen.
The legislation makes provision to retain a percentage of the moneys in the fund for a period of 12 months. Will the Minister indicate whether these moneys will be kept in reserve to cover any claims that may be made? It has become obvious to members of the public that there are a large number of dormant accounts, in which quite an amount of money is deposited, which remain open in financial institutions. Does the Minister envisage that people will emerge to claim the moneys in these accounts? Does he intend to put in place safeguards which will ensure that people will not make claims in respect of accounts which may not exist in the first instance.
I am sure everyone can envisage some of the difficulties which might occur. This matter was debated on Committee Stage in respect of section 17. The financial institutions will be obliged to try to contact the owners of possible dormant accounts to discover whether they are in fact dormant. The moneys in accounts which are actually proven to be dormant will be transferred in a single sum to the NTMA to be deposited in the dormant accounts fund. That money will then be transferred after a period to the disbursement account which will be under the control of the board we are establishing. The money in this account will be spent on good causes and put to use in the community.
As stated on Committee Stage, not all the money will be transferred from the dormant accounts fund to the disbursement account on the same day because the board will have to keep some in reserve to meet any claims which might be made. As those responsible for administering the dormant accounts fund gain experience and are able to estimate the likely level of claims, less money will be retained in the fund and more will be transferred to the disbursement account. People making claims will not be obliged to apply to a State agency to get their money back; they will simply approach the institution in which they had their account and it will deal with them under their procedures. Such institutions will then have to satisfy the State that Mr. Brown should have been entitled to the money, that the account was never dormant and, hence, the money should not have been transferred to the dormant accounts fund. Financial institutions will pay the money directly to claimants and then deduct the total amount of moneys paid out in this way from the moneys they will be transferring to the fund in the following year.
If a claim involving, for example, £2 million was made and the money had already been transferred to the disbursement account and expended, provision is made in the Bill that any deficit in the reserve fund will be paid from the central fund on a loan basis. It is unlikely that this will happen but provision is made to cover such eventualities. After a period of dealing with the fund, those responsible for administering it will know what is likely to be the level of claims during a year. I envisage that level will be quite low. However, one never knows and there may be a raft of claims made.
Deputy Belton referred to the fact people have become aware that banks are holding dormant accounts in which substantial amounts of money are deposited as a result of the publicity surrounding the Bill and the Public Accounts Committee inquiry. Between now and next April, people will be checking with their banks and vice versa to see whether their accounts are actually dormant. It is in the banks' interest to prove that they are not dormant because they can retain the moneys involved. If they are not dormant, the moneys will have to be transferred to the dormant accounts fund. There will be a great deal of activity on the part of the banks which will be trying to prove that accounts are not dormant. It is likely that the estimate of the number of dormant accounts in existence will prove too high because the banks will make a big effort to contact people so that accounts are not dormant.
People are going to discover that their late relatives had money in the bank about which no one knew. This can happen in any family and it happened to mine in the past seven to eight years when we discovered by accident that my mother, who had been dead for 24 years, had a small amount of money in an account we did not know existed. This led to my becoming interested in dormant accounts long before I became Minister for Finance.
Deputy O'Keeffe runs a practice in a rural area. I am aware from practising accountancy and coming into contact with solicitors whose clients live in rural areas that there is an extraordinary number of people who hold long forgotten accounts. I am sure the Deputy's experience in Bandon, County Cork, has influenced his thinking on this matter because there must be thousands of people in that area who have left money in bank accounts about which they have forgotten and which is being used for the benefit of the institutions in which such accounts are held.
In my opinion, the efforts financial institutions are going to make to prove that accounts are not dormant will reduce the amount of money transferred to the dormant accounts fund. Those institutions will, after all, want to retain that money. The points raised by Deputies McGrath and Belton are all covered either in the section or by the amendments.
I thank the Minister for his reply. On Committee Stage, Deputy Mitchell and I also referred to funds on deposit in an account held by a GAA club, a soccer organisation or a branch or local cumann of a political party. Sometimes moneys in such accounts remain untouched as a result of a change in personnel or because the treasurer may have passed away. We discussed such money reverting to the parent organisation. For example, if a GAA club discovered a dormant account in its name, instead of going to this fund, the money should go to GAA headquarters. Today's papers report a case in my constituency—
It seems to be like the Battle of Baltinglass, going back 25 years.
It is a difficult one and it will be interesting to see where those funds end up.
It is definitely not a dormant account.
There is a big demand for it. Has the Minister considered this? Funds that belong to branches of umbrella organisations should be transferred to them. We are discussing sporting and charity organisations, not ones from which people profit. They do great work and money going to them would be worthwhile. What is the Minister's response?
There are instances of a joint account where one of the parties does not know it exists. An uncle might open an account in his nephew's name and when he dies the nephew would be ignorant of it. The uncle would not have told him for fear the nephew might go to the races and spend the money.
That is not far fetched. I know of such cases.
Will the Minister comment on this?
Deputy McGrath raised this issue on Committee Stage and I asked the Irish Bankers Federation to investigate it. They advise that a bank can trawl its network and request other banks to check theirs. In the case of national organisations, such as the GAA, it is a matter in the first instance for the organisation to approach the account holding branch to request this service. There will be no problem if the organisation demonstrates an entitlement. An account opened by one or more individuals acting as trustees might not be caught in a general trawl. As I stated on Committee Stage, I do not propose to provide amendments as suggested by Deputies Mitchell and McGrath because it would discriminate between holders of personal and corporate accounts. The structure in place will cope with these problems.
Deputy Belton's concern is interesting. Residents of Dublin 4 do not know that it is common in the country for a farming uncle or grandparent to open a joint account in the name a younger relative and not inform the relative of this. Not until the elder relative passes on does the account's existence become known. That will be covered by this legislation because it will be the bank's duty to notify the named account holder. Some people will be in for a pleasant surprise when they discover the existence of an account of a long forgotten aunt or uncle, because the money will not go to the dormant account fund. Often near a person's demise, he or she will inform the younger relative of the account's existence. There is money locked up like that.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment reported.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 20, between line 11 and 12, to insert the following:
"(6) The accrued interest referred to in subsection (4)(a)(ii) shall, for the purposes of Chapter 4 of Part 8 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997, be deemed to be payment of an amount of relevant interest paid by the institution on the date of the payment to the claimant under that subsection.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 31, line 21, after "2000)" to insert "and, in particular, programmes or projects that are designed to assist primary school students with learning difficulties".
This amendment will allow money in the investment and disbursement account to be spent on programmes or projects that are designed to assist primary schoolchildren with learning difficulties. It provides that special priority be given to such projects or programmes. It will steer both the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs and the board towards such projects when they send in applications for funding. This amendment was suggested by Deputies Mitchell and McGrath on Committee Stage and I promised to accept it. The Parliamentary Counsel put the proper wording to it and I accept the Opposition's suggestion.
I thank the Minister for accepting this amendment. The public will be glad that dormant account funds are being spent on worthwhile projects. The signal will go out that the funds are being used to assist primary schoolchildren with difficulties. Everyone attends primary school and that part of the education system was under-funded by successive Governments. This is a worthwhile development but it should not be used as a substitute for mainstream funding. I hope the Minister puts on the record that this will not happen. In the past lottery funds were substituted for Exchequer funding and used to build schools which is unacceptable. The Exchequer ought to provide for such projects with this fund providing supplementary finance to do additional things. Within the primary sector, parents of children with dyslexia, as the Minister must know, get a raw deal. Most parents know that a person will go to the ends of the earth to help a child. Parents drive 25 miles or more a week to bring a child to special out of school evening classes for dyslexia. They must pay travel and tuition costs, which may not be high but should be paid by the State. The money in this fund should go to such a service. Also, DDH is a major problem not properly identified. It has long-term consequences if not treated early. This fund should go towards that and, it just occurs to me, towards research in this area since we rely on research from abroad. There is not enough knowledge and direction in this country on it. A research fund would enable a major educational institution to propose means of tackling these problems. I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the amendment. It is worthwhile and I hope the children will benefit from the funds.
I thank the Deputy for his comments and give the commitment that the money will not be used as substitute funding. I, as Minister, and my officials are mindful of spending additional public moneys but this fund will not be used in place of others.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
The Bill will be sent to the Seanad.