Are the amendments which are now being circulated to be taken now?
Funds of Suitors Bill, 1984: Committee Stage.
Has our spokesman been notified of these amendments?
(Limerick East): He got them last night.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
Could the Minister elaborate on section 2?
(Limerick East): Section 2 is a feature of the Bill which differs from previous Funds of Suitors legislation. The intention is to authorise all but a nominal amount of 1 per cent of the investments.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
Dún Laoghaire): In fairness to the Opposition it was not anticipated that the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill would finish until 7 o'clock. The difficulty is that the spokesman is not ready. We should give him time to prepare himself. I suggest that we adjourn for ten minutes.
Sitting suspended at 6.10 p.m. and resumed at 6.20 p.m.
Limerick East): I was contributing to section 2 and saying this feature of the Bill differs from previous Funds of Suitors Bills in that the intention here is to authorise the disposal of all but a nominal amount of one per cent of the investments in the dormant accounts of the funds of suitors, and not merely to dispose of the cash in the accounts as was done previously. Previously the interest accrued to the investments was distributed. Now we are liquefying the investment and holding just one per cent in the funds. The reason for holding the one per cent is so that the High Court will be able to evalue any subsequent claim which might arise. There is no question of the one per cent being adequate or not adequate, because subsection (5) of the Bill provides an indemnity anyway for any claims which might accrue subsequently.
While we are waiting for Deputy Woods to speak on this section I want to say it is indicative of the insensitivity of this House that we should find ourselves with a section such as this in a Bill which will give quite a lot of money to two organisations and, in particular, to one very well-off organisation. I protest at the Dutch auction which is taking place between the parties in this Parliament to give away larger sums of money to the bar society who are quite capable of funding——
That arises on section 3. We are on section 2 at the moment. Please confine yourself to section 2.
They are quite capable of paying their own way. I hope that, in dealing with this section and subsequent sections, we will become more sensitive to the needs of people in the community, and particularly those in cash starved and social amenity starved inner city Dublin. It is a load of nonsense to be giving this sort of money to well-off, well-heeled people.
That does not arise on section 2.
I should like to ask the Minister what the position is in relation to interest on the funds. Obviously some of these funds are in assets and some are in cash. Is any interest accruing or continuing to accrue?
(Limerick East): Yes, some of the investments are in assets and some are in cash, and interest continues to accrue. That is why it is difficult to be specific about the residual amount which is being allocated to the Children's Court, and other projects in the court areas, and to civil legal aid. The essential feature which distinguishes subsection (2) from similar provisions in previous Funds of Suitors Acts is that both the investments and the cash accrued are being disposed of here, whereas previously only the cash accruing to the investments was being disposed of.
Also a one per cent residue is being retained. It is not being retained to cover any claim that might be made subsequently on the funds of suitors by legitimate claimants. Subsection (5) indemnifies any claimant from a deficiency in the funds. The one per cent is being left there as a nominal amount so that it can be invested by the courts in the type of investment in which the funds are now invested, and used as a base figure, and subsequently a multiplier can be applied if a deficiency occurs and somebody was making a legitimate claim on the funds. It is merely a technical mechanism for measuring the exact value of any claim that might arise subsequently. It will amount to about £28,000. Over the past ten years the claims which have been made on the dormant acounts amounted to approximately £1,400. The likelihood of any claim arising in excess of the 1 per cent is removed. The reason for allowing the 1 per cent is not to cover subsequent claims because there is an indemnity in subsection (5), but to provide the base investment for a subsequent valuation. If a claim transpired it could be dealt with by allocating a precise figure of investment and interest accrued.
On the general principle of the Bill, section 2 is probably the best place to make this point. These funds of suitors have been with us for a considerable time. I should like to draw the attention of the House and the Minister to what I see as a fairly fundamental change in our approach to these funds. They were always regarded — in so far as you can ever so regard anything in public administration — as something of a nest egg. They were there to be availed of for separate, distinct, unique purposes.
I am not sure whether the Abbey Theatre rebuilding project was the first time we had recourse to them. That was of long-term historic importance. It was deemed entirely suitable that these funds of suitors, because of their very special nature, should be used for a purpose of that sort, something which was infinitely desirable in a cultural, artistic or even social sense, and which would never normally succeed in getting the sort of finance it would need. That principle was adhered to by all administrations. Because of their nature and the particular type of funds they were, they should be kept for very particular purposes, unique projects which could not and would not in the normal course of events be undertaken in the process of Government.
I fear we are eroding that principle on this occasion. I do not for one moment quarrel with any one of the purposes for which these funds are being allocated here. They are all desirable. I wonder whether the Minister, perhaps at the behest of the Minister for Finance, is now having recourse to these funds for purposes which would normally and legitimately fall to be financed by the Exchequer. For instance, let us look at the Arts Council. Various Members of this House have their own views about what level of funding we should provide for the arts in any year.
Any time I had responsibility in that area perhaps I stretched the Exchequer resources a bit more than would have been acceptable to many people. I would never quarrel with giving more to the arts rather than less. On the other hand, the Arts Council is a statutory body. The provision is there for the council to be funded every year in the House through the normal Estimates, and so on. I do not know if we should depart from that. It does not come within the unique one-off situation which the rebuilding of the Cork Opera House represents.
I am a bit worried about the principle of the Bill, that the Government would seek to shuffle off onto the funds of suitors liabilities or needs which should normally be met as a matter of annual contribution from the Exchequer as an ongoing current expenditure. I know that by saying this I am risking the accusation that I am not willing to provide funds for these purposes. Of course I am and here I would differentiate between Comhaltas Ceoltóirí and the others. Comhaltas Ceoltóirí comes within the very limited criteria I would set down as deciding how the funds of suitors should be used. I know that probably I leave myself open to the accusation that I am unwilling to provide support for these other purposes. I am not. I yield to nobody in my wish to promote our artistic and cultural endeavours and to allow them to receive the greatest possible support from the Exchequer. I make the point to the Minister in good faith that these funds of suitors are of such a special nature that they should be treated as a windfall when some unique set of circumstances make it desirable that we should have recourse to them for some uniquely desirable artistic or cultural purpose.
I do not know if the work on the King's Inns building is not something that should be undertaken in the normal way by the Office of Public Works as part of the voted moneys for the Office of Public Works in any particular year. I accept it is an historic building and an important one and that we must secure and preserve it but then that could be said about many other buildings. I should like the principle to be adhered to, that whatever we do in this area should be done in a straight forward manner through the annual voted expenditure.
The Chair fears that perhaps Deputy Haughey is making a speech that might more appropriately be made on Second Stage.
I think I have said everything I wanted to say.
I wanted the Deputy to know that the Chair appreciated he was wandering somewhat.
One of these days the Chair and I will form a mutual appreciation society. As always, I will bow not just to the wording of the Chair's ruling but also to the spirit of that ruling. Whatever about this Bill, for the future we should keep these funds of suitors for very special, unique and historic occasions.
(Limerick East): Certainly one could argue along the lines Deputy Haughey has argued. The funds of suitors have accrued for a number of centuries but they are no longer accruing. Most of the funds now accruing to the dormant funds arise from the burning of the Four Courts in 1922 when records were destroyed and this made it impossible for people to make claims subsequently.
Before the foundation of the State Funds of Suitors Bills were passed. The money was applied for such purposes as the building and improving of the Courts of Justice and enlarging the Law Library. In 1959 a sum of £323,000 was used towards rebuilding the Abbey Theatre and also for the reconstruction and the renovation of the King's Inns building and for the creation of a fund for the maintenance of the society's library. In 1963 a sum of £50,000 was used for the rebuilding of the Cork Opera House and in 1966 a sum of £450,000 was used to help finance the cost of rebuilding the Abbey Theatre and also to complete the Cork Opera House.
What I am doing here is realising the assets. I have looked carefully at how money was used in the past. Generally it was used in the courts area or in the general area of art and culture. I have followed the precedents here. First, I have fulfilled commitments made by previous administrations. I think Deputy Haughey made the original commitment to King's Inns and it was an admirable decision. It is a Gandon building, one of the finest in Dublin, but it is falling down. That is not a figure of speech. There are timber hoardings to protect the public from falling masonry. From information given to me, I am satisfied that the Society of King's Inns have not got the funds to refurbish and renovate the one-third of the building they own, the State owning two-thirds. It is appropriate that one of the finest buildings in Dublin should be renovated by the State, not particularly out of the vote of the Office of Public Works but, in keeping with the decision made by Deputy Haughey, to refurbish and renovate it out of funds of suitors.
Secondly, there is the allocation to the area of arts and culture. A sum of £600,000 will be used to fund items already set out in the capital projects listed by the Arts Council. The Royal Irish Academy of Music, another fine building, will be one of the projects. I take the point made by many Deputies regarding Comhaltas Ceoltóirí. Adding the £600,000 allocated to the general arts area and the £300,000 to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí gives a total of £900,000 to be spent in the general arts and culture area, in line with what was done previously.
Since I came to the Department of Justice I have had many approaches about the desirability of having a children's court in Dublin. Many Ministers were faced with this problem previously. As far back as 1966 there were recommendations that Dublin required a separate modern building for dealing with children in court and for facilities for parents and for consultations. I decided funds of suitors would be appropriate for building a children's court in Dublin. Before the foundation of the State money was used for the courts. Money was used for the Law Library, again a combination of King's Inns and the courts.
In the opinion of the Chair what the Minister is saying on Committee Stage is in order because we are dealing with specific matters in the Bill. However, the Chair hopes there will not be a repeat of this on section 3 where it is absolutely relevant.
(Limerick East): There is a radical change in subsection (2) from previous Funds of Suitors Bills in that not only is the investment cash accrued being disposed of but the actual investment is being disposed of. I think I am in order in explaining why a radical change——
The Chair was pointing out that section 3 deals with the specific items on which the money will be spent.
(Limerick East): I cannot estimate exactly what the children's court will cost but it will be somewhere in the region of £750,000. I was faced with the realisation at that point that if I wanted to fulfill the commitments made by two previous Governments to the King's Inns and Comhaltas and to provide funds for the Arts Council to proceed with their capital programme and to build a children's court, the residue was very small and that it would be generations before adequate funds would arise from that source. I then decided to put the proposal to the Government that we would retain only a nominal residue and use the remainder for general projects in the court area for civil legal aid and for the general area of community development and the £100,000 being allocated to the Department of Labour. While it is a radical change it is justified in the circumstances.
Section 2 (1) says "As soon as may be after the passing of this Act the accountant shall, upon the order of the Chief Justice, realise all of the investments of the dormant account of the funds...". I hope that the commitment to give £600,000 to the Law Library is not related to the need for the Chief Justice to make an order under this section because the money the Minister has available — I have no objection to the money being allocated to Comhaltas and the Arts Council — could be put to better use than making it available to gowned, bewigged, well-heeled trendies, which is nothing short of scandalous.
As I pointed out previously, the Deputy has related this to the necessity for the signature of the Chief Justice but the Chair must point out that the specific items on which the money is being spent are spelled out in the next section.
I am relating it to the need for the Chief Justice to make an order. It is a scandal. Do the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union get anything for Liberty Hall? Do accountants or solicitors get anything for their offices? Why, in God's name, do we have to give £600,000 to the Law Library? I will tell you why — because Deputy Haughey, when he was Taoiseach, promised it to them. He said here it was a pity that the money was coming out of this source and that it should come under the Office of Public Works. There are a number of areas in the inner city of Dublin and other parts of the country which would make very good use of £5,000 or £10,000 but they cannot get their hands on even that small amount. I have a great personal regard for the Chief Justice but I hope there is not a subtle bias with regard to these funds because he has to make the order. I hope we are not being pushed down a road which we do not want to go because, as an elected representative, I wish to protest at this money being allocated to people who are well capable of looking after themselves.
I take it that these comments would be more appropriate to the next section and that Deputy Mitchell, if he wishes, can desist from voting on that section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendment No. 3 is in the name of the Minister which may be discussed with amendment No. 4 by agreement.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, subsection (2) (c) line 13, to delete "£250,000" and substitute "£300,000".
Under this amendment I am proposing that the amount which may be paid to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann on the application of the Minister for the Gaeltacht should be increased from £250,000 to £300,000. The amount is intended to defray some of the cost incurred by Comhaltas in connection with the completion of an extension to their Cultúrlann at Monkstown, County Dublin, which was completed in 1983. A commitment had been given by a previous administration to amend the lapsed Fund of Suitors Bill, 1981, to make an amount of £200,000 payable to Comhaltas for this purpose. The provision in the Bill was intended to honour that commitment and to provide an increase limited to £100,000 beyond the original amount because of the increased indebtedness of Comhaltas that has arisen due to the delay in enacting the Funds of Suitors legislation. The object of this amendment is to increase the amount provided in the Bill as initiated by £50,000. As I said, the commitment given by the Fianna Fáil Government was £200,000. When the Bill was published the commitment was £250,000 and the amendment proposes to increase this by £50,000 to £300,000. Of course, this is not the only source of funds available to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. They also get a grant from Roinn na Gaeltachta which was £105,000 in 1981. In 1981 they also got £20,000 which was the last instalment of a £90,000 capital grant paid in 1981. In 1982 the grant was raised to £110,000 and has been maintained at £110,000 in subsequent years.
Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann are also allocated money from the Arts Council and the projected figure for 1984 is around £59,000. They also get small sums of money from the Department of Foreign Affairs. In all, if this amendment is accepted and the Bill becomes law, in 1984 Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann will get £300,000 here and £110,000 from Roinn na Gaeltachta. They will also get £60,000 from the Arts Council, which is a total of £470,000. They will also get some thousands for projects abroad from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Their total contribution from the State in 1984 will be approximately £475,000.
My amendment is to increase the sum to £500,000 instead of £250,000 which is in the Bill at present. We appreciate that the Minister recognises that there is a need for additional funds and that he goes further in providing £50,000 to bring the amount up to £300,000. However, there is no great value in giving them half a lifeline. They want us to help them to get out of their present difficulties whereby their debts have increased to £750,000. I am not going to repeat all that was said this morning about the importance of this organisation and how extensive their activities are. That has been recognised on both sides of the House. It is not a question of petty political point scoring which some of the Members on the other side of the House indulged in earlier indicating that the figure was £200,000 some time ago. Two Governments came and went in the meantime — there is another one now — when there was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in that period. We know that many Bills were delayed in coming before the House in any event. We need only look at the Criminal Justice Bill which experienced similar difficulties with changes of Government at that time. The net effect is that their position in 1984 is that they are indebted to the extent of £750,000.
I suggested this morning that the Minister could get the extra money he requires here from section 2 (b) which reads:
not more than £600,000 may be applied in or towards the defrayal of the cost of the carrying out of the works specified in section 4 of the Act,
This relates to the King's Inns. Those funds really should be provided by the Office of Public Works — this is work which is being undertaken by the Office of Public Works — leaving aside altogether the fact that one-third of the property there is privately held. There are certain questions about the provision of those funds for privately-held property without any contribution from the other side or any particular conditions applying. Indeed, the Minister may consider conditions subsequently. But the Office of Public Works from their normal allocation should be able to provide the moneys required in that area. By switching some of the money — as it now transpires an extra £200,000 — to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann we could throw them that lifeline, get them out of their present difficulties and allow them get on with the excellent work they are doing. For that reason we propose that the sum involved should be of the order of £500,000, as has been inserted in our amendment and I would ask the Minister to consider that. I appreciate that the Minister is giving an extra £50,000 and that he considered that very recently. I would ask him to consider going somewhat further so that they may be placed on a sound financial footing.
In welcoming the Minister's initiative in introducing this Bill, and that part of it which relates to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, I recognise fully the Government's intention to honour the contribution which the Comhaltas has made to Irish culture. I fully accept that the Government are now providing out of this fund a 50 per cent increase over and above that promised by the Fianna Fáil Government of 1982. Nevertheless, in spite of the additional funds available to them from other sources, and which the Minister correctly outlined, their grant from Roinn na Gaeltachta was reduced in 1982 from £125,000 to £110,000 and has been kept at that level ever since. When one takes devaluation into account — although it must be admitted that because of the efforts of the present Government they have succeeded in reducing the level of inflation which would slow down that impact — there is a case to be made for asking the Minister to reconsider what is a generous commitment of £300,000 from this fund to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann.
It needs to be said that the only two aspects of the whole of the Irish cultural heritage programme which have been recognised as being successful were those in the development of Irish music and the fashion which came into being about ten or 15 years ago of going back to the old Irish names for children. A great deal of tribute must be paid to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann for their work in that field.
I know we are dealing with the technical aspects of the Bill and that I cannot stray too far from them. Nevertheless this is particularly relevant in view of the new evidence coming to light under the series of films made by Bob Quinn which brings our whole heritage, our perceived origins and that kind of thing, into new focus for research and investigation. I have had the advantage of looking at the work of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann in other countries, particularly bearing in mind that my city is twinned with Quimper in France and we see there, as part of a cultural exchange, films outlining the work done by Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann in preserving our ancient heritage going back to the type of music prevalent in Europe and North Africa 1,500 to 2,000 years ago. They have preserved that and are now making that music fashionable again, whereas it had been derided, sneered at and decried up to 20 years ago before modern research afforded it the focus it deserves. They have played a tremendous role in this process. I do not need to throw apples into an orchard to tell anybody here the work they have done. But I recognise the constraints there are on State funds. I am sincere in applauding the Minister for his stated intention of increasing the original amount to £300,000. But, given the fact that they are circumscribed by the reductions from Roinn na Gaeltachta and by inflation, I would ask the Minister if he would please take another look at that aspect.
I believe nobody in the country would lend themselves to the kind of action intended in giving £600,000 to the Society of King's Inns. The legal profession, from time immemorial——
A passing reference about the legal profession is all right but we are dealing with Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann here.
——have managed to look after themselves very well. While I recognise that part of the buildings are public property I believe the legal profession are quite well able to come up with the resources to look after their aspect of it. I would express my opposition to giving them any funds.
There appears to be a certain amount of confusion about this section which is either deliberate on the part of Fianna Fáil or inadvertent—I am not sure which. As I see the position, the money to which we are referring here relates directly to the premises of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and not to the general body for all its activities. If my recollection is right, Fianna Fáil allocated £200,000 only whereas we allocated £250,000 to the premises and have now increased it by another £50,000. While I applaud the activities of the Comhaltas, as would anybody in the House, perhaps the Minister would clarify whether this refers to the actual premises or to the total activities for the debts incurred by Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann.
(Limerick East): The premises, Cultúrlann na hÉireann, in Monkstown, the capital of rural Ireland.
It might help Deputy Coogan if I say that to me it is immaterial, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann is such an organisation that it cannot operate without having a headquarters, the Cultúrlann na hÉireann, which is a vital part of any organisation. Surely if there are financial demands on them, irrespective of whether that is required for funding branches or for the maintenance of their headquarters, Cultúrlann na hÉireann in Monkstown, it is all part of this great movement.
(Dún Laoghaire): But the Deputy allocated £200,000 only.
I did not allocate anything.
(Dún Laoghaire): The Deputy's Government did.
Deputy Tunney without interruption, please.
I was not in Government. In an earlier contribution I said that successive Governments had been neglectful of these organisations, but it is never too late to learn. I do not know why the present Government seem hell bent on not doing any better than Fianna Fáil were going to do.
(Dún Laoghaire): 50 per cent better.
If the Deputy will look at the respective values of the money at the relevant times he will find there is very little difference in what Fianna Fáil were offering and the situation now. Deputy Coogan made the point that he thought very important the area of the activities of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann to which this money would be directed. I suggest that that is irrelevant, that it is all part of the operations of this great movement. We are told it is essential that they be given this money in order to survive. Are we going to give them the money which will help towards that survival or are we to sit here and take part in the wake, and cry afterwards that it is a pity about Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, that they were doing great? Deputy Coogan will appreciate that they operate in his county in parts of the Gaeltacht and throughout Galway.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.