In respect of the dissolution, I am a little perturbed about the interim period. What exactly happens in respect of that between 1955 and 1962?
Royal Hospital Kilmainham Bill, 1961—Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill".
The interim does not affect the interest. The interest is calculated on the amounts that would be paid to Chelsea if the governors had continued in office but the fact is that the governors went out of office because there was no quorum left.
It is like Mahommed's coffin, suspended?
The Deputy may take it that the amount paid to Chelsea will be the amount that would have been paid if the governors had continued in office.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Section 3 deals with chattels. Has anybody told us or is information anywhere available as to what approximately they are—furniture, fittings, fixtures, pictures, books, documents and other chattels at present in the hospital? Is there any considerable deposit of chattels in the old hospital building?
There is, of course, the furniture and there are some pictures. I think we should regard some of them, at least, as having a sentimental value and there was some question of letting them go to Chelsea.
Some question of their going?
The furniture would remain, of course.
I thought it was not going, that the Minister was paying for it and keeping it here.
The furniture would remain here—all furniture and fittings of that kind.
It is transferred to the Minister? All chattels?
Yes.
Then how can it go to Chelsea if it remains the property of the Minister?
I am not so sure about that. There was discussion between both parties about some of these pictures. For instance, there is one picture of a pensioner who lived to be very old. The others are pictures principally, I think, of kings and commanders-in-chief which they might like to have at Chelsea. Perhaps they would not bother about them.
The purpose is to give the Minister power under subsection (2) of Section 3 to give them to Chelsea if he so desires?
If we agree on that, yes.
I can see the Minister, if he was on this side of the House, raising Cain if I were proposing to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Do Sections 4 and 5 represent the total outlay by the Exchequer in respect of this transfer?
Yes. First of all, the £2,400 is the agreed figure of what the interest would amount to if the interest had been invested for some years and had gone on and accumulated interest again. The total is about £5,000.
What about the stock?
The stock remains in the new trust. It is only the interest that goes.
It is as clear as mud to me. There is nothing in the Bill that declares the new trust.
Section 4 (b) does.
It does not declare it. All it says is that we are going to make a new trust. The purpose of Section 4 (b) is to set up a new trust but you have not said anything in the Bill about it, other than that it is to be charitable in the wide sense of the new Charities Bill. It says that it is to be for the benefit of former members of the Defence Forces. At some stage, this House should have the matter back to it for the purpose of possible review. At the very least, I would suggest that the scheme should be laid on the Table of the House and should be subject to annulment within 21 days, as in the case of a statutory order.
The courts have held these funds all through the years. They have held the two sums of £6,000 and £4,000 obtained for the sale of these lands to the old Western Railway. We are saying here that the Attorney General may ask the court to make a new trust but I do not know if we can compel the court to do more than suggest the purpose of the new trust. It might go to some charitable purpose or for the benefit of the Defence Forces.
The Minister is leaving a discretion as to whether they will remain here or go to Chelsea?
No; the interest goes to Chelsea.
The opening words of Section 4 are permissive. The word "may" in that section can be either permissive or the equivalent of the word "shall". If the Minister takes the view that the High Court may not make a new scheme at all, then also the word "may" is permissive as regards the £2,500.
I think the word "may" may be taken as permissive.
Then it is permissive on both legs.
I think we may assume that the court will have no objection to doing this, that they will do it and, if it helps Deputies, I see no objection to this scheme being laid on the Table of the House.
Perhaps we may refer to Section 3 in retrospect as it is closely linked with Section 4?
Yes.
Is there any precedent being established by giving the Minister power at his absolute discretion to dispose of any or all of such chattels by sale for the benefit of the Exchequer or by gift, exchange or loan? I think it is rather an unusual power to confer on the Minister to dispose of public property by gift. I fully understand that from time to time the Minister has power to lend public property, such as pictures to foreign art galleries but I never yet heard of a power to give away public property at his absolute discretion.
It is a pretty wide power.
Perhaps it is. I certainly could not quote any precedent for this but I think I am right in saying that if these pictures had been handed over in the course of the negotiations up to the present, there would be no question.
I would not hesitate to give the Minister the power to give away old pictures of sentimental value to the Chelsea Hospital, if they wish to have them, but to give a general power to the Minister at his absolute discretion to dispose of all or any of the chattels by gift to anybody seems to me to go beyond what is necessary. Is it a good precedent?
This is a very important legal position with which I am not in a position to deal authoritatively. The Minister has power to dispose of other property in the possession of the Government and to mention it later in the Appropriation Account.
I can remember when I was Minister for Agriculture the question arose as to whether I could give somebody some of the surplus plants which were being thrown out of the Botanical Gardens. I took the view that I had no power to give them to anybody, although I thought I ought to give them rather than have them thrown away. However, I knew of no power that authorised me to give them to anybody.
I am told that the Deputy could have done so and put a note in the Appropriation Account.
I would have had to get some sort of authority, either ante or post. This is looking for prior authority to give away public property and I never heard of it before.
Are the pictures any good?
I could not tell you, but I am prepared to say that if there are pictures up there of sentimental value to Chelsea Hospital, in settling up an old matter of this kind, I would be in favour of giving them the pictures.
If they are of sentimental value to the Chelsea Hospital, surely the Republican Party would not be too proud of them.
In any case, what I am concerned with is to avoid giving the precedent by statute of conferring on the Minister the right to dispose of public property at his discretion by gift.
That is there specifically because it is trust property. If it had not been trust property, I need not have put that in.
If it has to be in the Appropriation Bill, there must be statutory authority for it.
Would it be practicable to provide any record somewhere of any gifts the Minister deems it expedient to make under this power?
Yes; they will be noted in the Appropriation Account, even though I have this authority.
Even with the authority here?
Yes, even so.
Is the Minister telling me that in the Appropriation Accounts there will be a note that the Minister disposed of a portrait to Lieut.-Colonel Cholmondeley-Cholmondeley and one portrait to Brig.-General Fosdyke Marmaduke?
That is right.
Will that appear?
If there is a gift, it will be noted.
If the Minister says so, I accept his word.
Under which Vote will it appear in the Appropriation Account?
The Board of Works.
Fair enough. We shall remember that.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
On this Stage of the Bill, may I inquire what it is intended to do with the Royal Hospital, now that all these matters have been cleared up?
I said on the Second Stage that it is being given to the Museum, and the part of the building that is being renovated will be ready possibly within a year, in fact by the end of this year, that is, the chapel, diningroom, and so on. The Museum are transferring their Folklore Section there and hope to enlarge it. The remainder of the building will take a couple of years to renovate but the Museum will get it eventually.
Would the Minister consider, instead of handing it over to any body, restoring it to the person who originally took it over?
This is the Fourth Stage. If the Deputy wishes to say anything protracted——
This is just for the record. The Minister is going to hand this building over. I think he should consider changing the trustee to the person who took it over. I want to remind the Minister that the British War Office handed the Royal Hospital over to me in 1927 and that I was to retain it until such time as they asked it back from me. They never asked for it back from me from that day to this. As far as the British War Office is concerned, it is still mine and I am responsible for the full stock in it; but the Board of Works and the Minister for Finance at a later date took it over from me without my consent. They took it over arbitrarily; if I did not hand it over, the gratuity which the State paid to me and of which Fianna Fáil were making great play, would not be paid to me. It is very interesting that the Minister can now make a gift to Lieut.-Colonel Cholmondeley-Cholmondeley and to Brig.-General Marmaduke but the Irish citizen is deprived of what is his undoubted right. I would ask the Minister to look into that to see where I come in.
I shall.
Now that Deputy MacEoin has made such an ironic gesture in inquiring what his rights are, the Minister ought to give us the true story of what the situation is. This property belonged originally to the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, or a trust similar to that——
Similar, yes.
——looking after the old soldiers of the British Army in this country. On the establishment of the State, that purpose failed and these premises remain in the hands of the trust. They then handed them over to us, through the person of Deputy General MacEoin, and he vested them at some stage in the State.
Has Deputy MacEoin any papers to prove it?
I have, of course, and I have a complete inventory of the stock.
It is now proposed to transfer the buildings and the surrounding grounds to the Museum. I take it that before we hand them to the Museum, they will be put in a state of perfect repair and will then become an annual charge on the Museum Vote. Is it intended to ask the Museum to surrender any part of their premises here in Kildare Street in exchange for the new accommodation or is this to be additional accommodation?
No. We had hoped, when these negotiations with the Museum started, to get part of this building they had on the way out to Merrion Street but, on investigation, it was found they could not afford to surrender any part of their present premises, that this would be needed for a Folk Museum which is practically non-existent at the moment. Therefore, there will be no relief at all of the congestion here. They are still considering when they will transfer part of the present Museum in a couple of years' time when they get the remainder of the building.
Question put and agreed to.
Question: "That the Bill do now pass" put and agreed to.