Amendment No. 4 is an alternative to amendment No. 3 and amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are being discussed together. Deputy Tunney is in possession.
Estimates, 1984. - Funds of Suitors Bill, 1984: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
Debate resumed on amendment No.3:
In page 3, subsection (2) (c) line 13, to delete "£250,000" and substitute "£300,000".
I am happy that I did not have to make any case for addressing the Chair or the House, that I had no irksome contribution which might appear to upset my tranquillity as I plead the case for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. Again I would put to the Minister the fact that he accepted that Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann are at the moment on the verge of bankruptcy. The sheriff is waiting. While we can argue that in the past successive Governments have been neglectful of the special position of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, that is irrelevant to the moment. Even though it was acknowledged earlier that the Minister had moved from his original position of £250,000 to £300,000, he has now before him an amendment in the name of our spokesman, Deputy Woods, asking that he increase that to £500,000. In so doing he will give recognition to the work that Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann are doing and acknowledge that in their own right they are entitled to this money. Apart from that, in the unfortunate position in which they find themselves, without the additional money they will be unable to continue developing their great organisation as it is. They will not be able to survive.
I take the correction that the Minister made to my reference to Clannad as against Na Casadaigh. There is no difference between the two. If the Minister wants that again perhaps I should say that for reasons best known to the Taoiseach I was not privileged to be there to note that it was Na Casadaigh rather than Clannad who were there to entertain and demonstrate to this great visiting dignatory all that is best in Irish music and culture. I am at a loss to know why the Minister might take that point as militating against his giving Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann more money.
The Minister in the legislation is giving a blank cheque to the Taoiseach in respect of £600,000 for undisclosed purposes. I know that it is wise and prudent for any Minister to place such confidence in his Taoiseach, but he will accept that where there is unanimity in the House as to the special merits of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann it seems strange that he would give a blank cheque for £600,000 to the Taoiseach to cover areas of art and culture while his allocation in respect of what is identified by all Members of this House as the most important organisation working in the field of Irish culture is so limited. There is nothing insular about giving preference to our own. I appreciate that in the field of art the Taoiseach may be disposed later on to give grants to the theatre where there will be placed before us in this and other cities dramas set in French attics and boudoirs and English and American basements, all of which is important in the whole spectrum of the theatre, but the Minister must accept that what is being pursued by Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann should take preference and priority over that. Would he presume that the Taoiseach might not mind too much if the £600,000 which he is giving the Minister to use at his discretion for the arts and culture could be reduced by £100,000 or £200,000 so that he could meet the amendment proposed by Deputy Woods? Surely the Taoiseach has some faith in the opinions of this House.
The fact that the amendment was proposed by Deputy Woods is completely unimportant to me. What is important is that it is the minimum required to keep Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann viable. The Minister may say that the membership of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann if they are sincere can continue to run raffles and tax their own members to an extent greater than at the moment. If he says that I will ask him why not tax the members of the legal or some other profession who have available to them greater amounts than are available to the Comhaltas. Professional bodies exist and money is available to them.
I know that other Deputies are anxious to speak to this. I appeal in all sincerity to the Minister to increase this allocation. He has already had a change of heart and has accepted that the original amount of £250,000 should be raised. There is no reason why he should not accept that he should do the big thing by Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and raise it to £0.5 million.
Because I have been arguing purely on the nature of the work for its own sake I have left aside all the considerations about the ancillary benefits to us in the matter of tourism, the benefits to the Comhaltas and the groups sent out by them to travel to England and all over the world demonstrating what we have here. For its own sake the least this House would require of the Minister, bearing in mind the situation that we all know exists in the Cultúrlann and with the Comhaltas, is that we should make it a viable operation and allow all those good volunteers, people so concerned with the preservation and development of this great aspect of our culture, to continue. More important, we should acknowledge their importance. We are thankful that they exist and are prepared to do the work which we ourselves should be doing.
In reply to Deputy Tunney's earlier statement I am very much aware of the value of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann as is everybody else on this side of the House. The recognition of their value is in the essential fact that the Minister has allocated £300,000 towards their premises. I want to be quite clear that we are talking about the premises in Monkstown, not the whole country or the whole of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. I would like to have on the record that, if my memory serves me correctly, Fianna Fáil allocated only £200,000, and a statement from across the House earlier today said that we were only keeping pace with inflation. The difference between £200,000 and £300,000 is 50 per cent. Now I understand how Fianna Fáil can get their figures wrong, if they try to state to the House that inflation was running at 50 per cent in the last year and a half. A measure of how Fianna Fáil value Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann is in the amount of £200,000 which they allocated. It would appear to me that we value them very much more than that in so far as we have given them an extra 50 per cent.
I, too, support the amendment that £500,000 be given to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. Most of the arguments for the amendment have been put already. There is an unanswerable argument for providing this money to CCE because of the financial difficulties in which they find themselves and also because to give too little might be to throw away money rather than to save an organisation. Therefore, it is very important to give the appropriate amount. The case for the necessity for the £500,000 has been well made by the organisation in terms of saving their headquarters.
Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann were established in the fifties at a time when Irish music was not as popular as it is today. Certainly, it was not known internationally in the way it is known now. The members of CCE built the organisation. They control and run it, not to make profit but because of the love they share for Irish music and the culture they are promoting. They have succeeded down through the years in having Irish folk music internationally loved and sought after. The audiences in this respect are even wider in Europe than they are in Ireland. In addition to the 400 or so branches of the organisation in Ireland, they have branches also in Germany, France, Sweden, Luxembourg and Australia while there are 25 branches in North America and 40 in Britain. That is an extraordinary achievement for a voluntary organisation in a relatively short number of years. They have done an immense amount of good for our country. In terms of money alone they have promoted Ireland throughout Europe, America and Australia. For this reason alone they are deserving of the greatest possible assistance from the Government. Instead, the grant was cut in actual terms in 1982 from £125,000 to £110,000 and it has remained at that level since, despite the fact that, taking inflation into account, the £125,000 should have been increased to £160,000 or £170,000. The grant is very small in terms of Arts Council grants. In terms of the size of the organisation and its importance, the grant is very tiny. This is one case where the Government cannot plead they have no money, that the country is broke, that they would like to help CCE but do not have the money. In this case there is £2,790,000 of a largesse to hand out without the taxpayer having to be concerned since the money will not be coming from his pocket. This, then, is a wonderful opportunity for the Government to do something for the organisation.
However, the £2,790,000 will not be used for the benefit of voluntary organisations. Only £300,000 of that amount is to be paid to CCE, while practically half of it will go back into the Exchequer and to Government Departments. This is an outrage and should not be acceptable to this House.
To say that the Minister is increasing the amount by £50,000 is to indicate how low it was at the beginning. It is an effort to put a reasonable face on the amount but £300,000 is not sufficient. What is at stake here is the saving of the headquarters of an organisation who have brought tremendous honour as well as a great deal of tourism and money to this country, an organisation who have succeeded in bringing about cultural relations with other countries on a scale that no other State can match. This is one of the diplomatic ways of becoming familiar with other cultures. In this cultural endeavour people from the Continent, from America, Australia, Britain and so on have learned more about Ireland and have come to love our music which has such variety compared with the folk music of other countries.
By agreeing to increase the subvention from the Funds of Suitors Bill to CCE to £500,000 the Minister would be doing a tremendous service to the country, its music and its culture. There are a number of ways in which he could see his way to making this extra money available: one is to reduce the amount for the King's Inns but another is to have regard to the very big amount of £1.19 million which remains in his Department. If he still finds, having looked at all these things that it is impossible to take the money off the King's Inns or that he must use the money to build a new Children's Court he could always put a word in the ear of the Taoiseach who has been given £600,000 to give out in whatever way he sees fit. We have no idea what the Taoiseach will do with that money in relation to cultural development or what particular artistic endeavour he favours. It may not be one that the House would favour. The Minister could ask the Taoiseach for £200,000 out of his £600,000 if he cannot find £200,000 anywhere in the £1.19 million.
There are plenty of places where the Minister can get the money from. The money is available and there is no argument about that. It is a question of the will to do it. It shows an apparent lack of knowledge of the importance of the organisation to the country and the need to keep them going. It shows a lack of understanding about what the effect would be if the organisation collapsed. The use and development of the headquarters is of vital importance in keeping the organisation together. All the organisation's money goes into the running of the organisation. They receive a miserable grant of only £110,000. How are they to finance trips abroad or trips made by branches abroad to this country? How are they to finance the fleanna and still keep their headquarters going? It is easy to say that an organisation of this size should do such and such and should not have got into trouble of this kind.
The organisation have done a good job and building their headquarters was worthwhile. They have financial difficulties, as have the most efficient industries and businesses. These industries get assistance from the State through Fóir Teoranta or the IDA. I do not think the Minister took into consideration the financial importance of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann to the economy and the work they do in attracting tourists to the country. There is no question of this being a case of just giving money away each year to fund a particular artistic endeavour whether it be theatre, ballet or whatever. This would make a vitally important organisation, which has grown over the past 30 years, financially viable and put them back on a sound footing. It would enable them to proceed with organising fleanna and so on without having to collect money continuously to pay bills and stave off creditors, which is their position at present. Comhaltas are not as efficient as they would be if they did not have financial difficulties.
I appeal to the Minister to find another £200,000 for them to ensure that their headquarters is maintained. The money is available and it would be no skin off the noses of taxpayers to do this. No pressure has to be put on the Minister for Finance. The money is there. It is just a question of distributing it in the way it can do most good. Giving an extra £200,000 to Comhaltas is a way in which this money could be used.
It is nice for a change to hear everyone talking about money we have to give out rather than the other way around. The Fund of Suitors Bill has come up three or four times in the last 20 years. The money should be given back to the people in a form in which the people would get the maximum benefit from it. That poses a problem for whoever has the job of deciding to whom the money should be given. In the case of Comhaltas they would get maximum return for the money expended for the reasons outlined by Deputy Mac Giolla and others. I agree with him in his analysis of the contribution that Comhaltas are making to the country. On the other hand, it would be a limited use if it was given to the building.
It may be wasteful although useful if the Department of Labour distribute the money to very small projects where it is not possible to get a big return for it. I realise that the intention to give some to the King's Inns has caused the most contention. The Minister devoted a considerable part of his speech to explaining why money is needed in this area. Some people concentrated on this and the Minister gave a full explanation, thinking that was what Members wanted. In 1959, 1963 and 1966 many distinguished Members of the House established a precedent for giving money to this institution. Looking back at the debates they amounted almost to representations on behalf of the building. This probably derived from the fact that they were more familiar with the building than the ordinary Dubliner.
I am sure the Deputy will relate his remarks on the King's Inns to the amendment.
The amendment stipulates that no more than £600,000 may be applied to defray the cost of carrying out the works specified in section 4.
The amendment suggests devoting a very substantial sum of money to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann.
I agree with that. If the Chair is ruling that we speak on the Comhaltas figure——
I am sure the Deputy can relate his remarks one to the other.
I was talking about the amount of money, how it could be divided out and whether in the case of Comhaltas the money should be increased or decreased. I said that where possible we should get the maximum benefit from it.
Deputy Mac Giolla spoke about the amounts of money being awarded and said it was possible to juggle them around. This is fair enough because we are talking about a sum of £2,790,000. A sum of £600,000 is needed for the work to be carried out in the King's Inns building but the question was asked if this money should be spent in this way. In the 1966 debate on this subject a former Taoiseach said, at column 1886, Volume 223 of the official report, that
normally, the type of expenditure involved might not be regarded as being directly the responsibility of the State and, in circumstances of a shortage of money for a variety of necessary projects, particularly building projects, might not be regarded as one which could legitimately be considered and certainly would be regarded as a project that would compete for the funds available only on a very unreal basis, as being one that would be unlikely to justify public expenditure, certainly in the sphere in which some of the activities are carried on.
I listened to the Minister's explanation for providing public money for this building. Other speakers said that, if this building is to get public money, other buildings too might be considered. The Minister said this building was falling down and desperately needed money spent on it. I wanted to ask a simple question: who decided in the last year to sandblast the stonework of this building and nearly succeeded in knocking it down? A lot of damage was done to the building during that operation. In his speech the Minister said:
Architectural examination of the King's Inns building in 1980, and of the adjoining Registry of Deeds building, revealed that the external stonework of both buildings is in a state of serious decay. The deterioration in the stonework arises from the age of the material, from atmospheric pollution and from the poor quality of the granite which was used in the building. The state of the stonework gives rise to a danger of falling masonry, and hoardings have been erected in places to protect the public for injury.
To clean up the building contractors were hired and I saw the building being sandblasted over a period of months. High pressure air and sand were used to blast away at this very delicate stonework which is almost falling apart. I wonder how much of this £600,000 will have to be expended repairing the damage done trying to clean the building. This was the wrong way to go about cleaning this building. Perhaps the Minister could ask his experts in the Office of Public Works about this. In my view this cleaning should have been done by way of a chemical and gentle washdown. This building, which was built in 1795, should be glistening in the sun in all its glory instead of looking like a dull grey giant since this work was carried out. Perhaps the Office of Public Works should take this building in hand and look after it properly.
In my view the real reason why questions have been asked about this building and the amount of money being granted is that this is independently-owned and we would not get a return for the people's money. This very important building erected in 1795 was the last work in Dublin of James Gandon, but there are many other buildings around the country for which a good case could be made to have public money spent on them. Not too long ago Christ Church Cathedral had to raise money to have a restoration job carried out. Castletown House has managed to survive for the last 20 years by voluntary donations and by opening its doors to the public. If we spend this money on this building and if this fund is going to be used in future to help restore or maintain historic buildings, perhaps a trust should be set up with a certain amount of money to be used to help maintain selective buildings.
In 1959 £323,000 was given towards the Abbey Theatre, renovation of the King's Inns and the maintenance of the library of the King's Inns. The Minister did not tell us but how much of that money went towards the King's Inns. In 1963 only the Cork Opera House got public funds. In 1966 the Abbey and the Cork Opera House were again given public money. It is interesting to note that in 1966 the present Chief Justice, then Deputy O'Higgins, and Deputy Cosgrave requested a small amount of money for the upkeep of these buildings.
I hate to interrupt the Deputy, but amendments Nos. 3 and 4 ask whether £300,000 or £500,000 should be included for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. I appreciate the Deputy's concern for the other buildings, but the Minister's amendment says the amount should be £300,000 and the amendment in the name of Deputy Woods and others says the figure should be £500,000. They are the two amendments being discussed. The Deputy may make a passing reference, but he has gone into an historical discussion on some buildings and I would be greatful if he would come back to the amendments.
I appreciate your correction but before you came into the House we had been talking about the total amount involved and the Ceann Comhairle invited me to relate it to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and the amount given to this building, to examine how the total amount should be expended and to say whether more money should be given to Comhaltas.
It appears that a precedent is being claimed in this instance, and we should examine whether that is the case. It may be unfair to take the amount allocated for this building as if this were happening for the first time. It is understandable that people will object to an independent body, with independent means, getting an allocation from public money for the upkeep of a building which is largely for their benefit, apart from the fact that two-thirds of this building is occupied by the Registry of Deeds. Over the years this building has been of very little benefit to the general populace because it was not easily accessible to the ordinary person. Because of the restricted entry into that institution, only a small number of people can gain entrance. If we are to give money to that institution should we not extract a price for it? The price in this case should be that the society would be accessible to the Department of Education, for instance, so that they would have some say in the examinations and in control of those who go to the Bar.
Another matter worthy of consideration is the justified objections from the public to a large amount of money being given to an institution from which the general public derives such little benefit. We saw not long ago the sale of rare books in Christies of London in order to raise money for the library. In such circumstances I do not think it is fair to the people of Ireland to ask them to support the institution when this money is required for many other worthy causes without, at the same time, being able to look at or investigate the system of examination and entrance to King's Inns——
Section 4 deals with that.
It is in section 3 as well.
We are dealing with amendments Nos. 3 and 4 which deal with Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann.
We are talking about allocating £500,000 to the Comhaltas. I have no objection to giving the money in the way the Minister has proposed, to the Comhaltas and this institution provided that the maximum benefits will accrue for the people of Ireland. In the case of the Comhaltas, it is obvious that benefits will come back a hundred fold in the same way as we could gain benefit for the people if the return from the enormous sum of money we are proposing to give the King's Inns——
You are pre-empting discussions on an amendment yet to come. Would you please confine yourself?
I do not want to bring this forward again on the next section because I would be delaying the House. The £300,000 which the Minister has suggested for the Comhaltas or the £500,000 which Deputy Woods has suggested cannot be provided unless we examine closely the total amount of money available. That is why I have been looking at it in this way. We should look at how the £600,000 will be spend in King's Inns——
You are a very persistent Member. I have indicated the line you can take but you persist in straying from the two amendments before the House. I appreciate your concern for the finance available but I would be grateful if you would confine yourself to amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
I apologise — I did not mean to disobey your ruling, with which I agree. The Minister has a certain amount of money to allocate and he has given a generous increase on the original amount proposed for the Comhaltas, a generous increase on the amount suggested by the Opposition when in Government. If he had offered £400,000 they would probably have looked for £600,000. They should be thankful for the increased amount proposed by the Minister, a substantial percentage increase on what was offered earlier. I think we will benefit enormously from this allocation.
I support the amendment proposed by Deputy Woods to increase the sum to £500,000. I acknowledge that the Minister has come part of the way with us by proposing to increase the original figure and there is an unquestioned need to do this. I come from Clare, from an area which has been in the forefront of the revival of Irish music, dance and culture in the past number of years. Deputies will understand the importance in my constituency of the preservation of our national culture. Miltown Malbay, Tulla and Doolin have been identified closely with Irish song and dancing. We all know what has been done in Clare by Comhaltas in this respect in the last number of years, particularly in my constituency, for the preservation and development of our traditions. Not only that, but they have provided facilities to enable much more work to be carried out.
It is vitally important that the whole financial structure of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann be such as will ensure that all the impact which they have had in the regional areas, and above all in the small local communities, is preserved. We should make every effort — and this is a very small effort, indeed — to put their financial structure in a more healthy position than it is at present. No-one here can be satisfied with the present situation.
It has been said that Comhaltas Ceoltóirí can do a lot themselves, and they have done a tremendous lot in local fund raising in every community. Other Deputies are well aware of the developments that have taken place at the fine centre at Ennis, Cois na hAbhna. There have been the teachta ceoil and various other centres provided in isolated communities at enormous expense and inconvenience to Comhaltas, working in a voluntary capacity over a great number of years. It is important that we recognise this work and ensure the provision of the necessary finances.
1985 will be European Music Year and will be celebrated with various events. Is it not an indictment of the community that we should allow an organisation dealing with our own cultural traditions to be in this very unhealthy financial position at this time and not remedy that by giving the extra finance needed at a time when we are about to launch into a national campaign to celebrate European Music Year?
I would point out also the educational impact of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí on the isolated rural communities. Organisations like the Willie Clancy Summer School at Miltown Malbay where young Irish musicians are trained and many students, including foreigners, are introduced to Irish music. This has had a tremendous impact on very young people. It has been argued that the Comhaltas could finance themselves, but I do not think that they can come up with the money and every day that this situation is allowed to continue will make it more difficult for them to get out of the financial crisis.
I noticed in the Minister's brief the reference to the provision of money for the Department of Labour's youth and recreational scheme. This is a very welcome development. However, my understanding of the scheme, which was organised and run by the Department of Labour, was that the funds available in a number of years — I am not sure of the present situation — were not fully utilised. Perhaps it was because schemes were not organised or capable of being run efficiently during the course of the year, or for some other reason. At one time there was upwards of £1 million in that fund unspent at the end of a financial year. I am not sure what particular scheme this money is directed at, but the Minister is looking at areas to find an extra £100,000 should check with the Department of Labour to see if the money provided for the youth and recreational schemes within that Department's Vote was expended.
(Limerick East): On a point of order, since Deputies are discussing all sections and all amendments together, could we have an agreement to do so?
Deputy Daly is on amendment No. 5 at the moment.
(Limerick East): Could we agree to take them together and vote on them together?
We are talking about where the money is going to.
There is nothing whatever wrong about my suggestion that the Minister look for ways and means of finding extra money. We are finding ways and means of doing that.
(Limerick East): I am simply making a point of order.
The Minister is speaking out of order. He is making an unnecessary interruption.
(Limerick East): I am making a point of order that the Deputy is now not discussing amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I have no objection to discussing what he is now discussing.
He is, of course, discussing the amendments.
(Limerick East): I just do not want them discussed a second time. Deputy Daly can discuss them if he wants to do so.
Deputy Daly, without interruption.
That may not be the way it goes in the Department, but that is how it goes here in the House.
Not everybody is apparently interested in this.
Amendment No. 5, Deputy Daly, refers to the £300,000 in the Department of Labour. We are speaking at the moment on amendments Nos. 3 and 4, with regard to Comhalts Ceoltóirí Éireann.
I am making a very relevant point.
If you wish to extend the discussion into amendment No. 5, we can take amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together.
(Limerick East): Deputy Daly does not want to discuss that because he was a Minister in a Government which gave only £200,000 to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann.
And the Minister is looking for £100,000 here. How can he justify that?
The Deputy is out of order. Deputy Skelly on a point of order.
I did not interrupt the Minister.
Deputy Skelly wants to put a point of order.
The Deputy was talking about the King's Inns for a half an hour. He does not know what he is talking about.
Would Deputy Daly please continue on amendments Nos. 3 and 4?
Because of the sections, I found it very difficult to keep to the one matter. I was also going to suggest that we talk about the sections in general which would make it much easier. We might never get to the other sections.
At the moment we are dealing with amendments Nos. 3 and 4. — the sum of £300,000 and £500,000 for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí. That is what we are on.
And where the Government will get it.
(Limerick East): The Deputy made no such suggestion.
I do not think that the Minister could raise any objection to the point I was making. It was relevant to the issue before us. I was suggesting ways in which the Minister, if he is as badly off as he fancies he is, might be able to find a few extra pounds. In his own amendment he has suggested a change within a few months of issuing a Bill. I am saying he should go the full way and accept the amendments which we are putting forward from this side of the House, which are realistic and sensible. He should adopt them.
The amendment which the Minister has put down to increase the funding from £250,000 to £350,000, as far as I understand it——
£300,000.
It only goes to £300,000.
—— is very realistic, especially when one considers the reason for the allocation in the regional Funds of Suitors Bill which was formulated in April 1982. At that time the Department of the Gaeltacht issued a letter by which Comhaltas Ceoltóirí raised some £200,000 in order to fund their new building. When this new Bill came forward and the Minister proposed a sum of £250,000, it seemed that in the 18 months he was covering the cost to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí and doing the correct think in so covering it. At that time it was pointed out that Comhaltas Ceoltóirí were having financial difficulties and the Minister has been very generous in now increasing that money by another £50,000. We started at a level of the State guaranteeing £200,000 and it is now going to guarantee £300,000, which is a 50 per cent increase. The management of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí are aiming, towards that kind of increase. The leader of Comhaltas, Lebhras Ó Murchú, in a recent speech sought £400,000, and generally people looking for money put a ceiling on it. The Minister has gone a long way towards relieving the immediate financial problems facing this body.
I understand why other Deputies speak so highly of Comhaltas and the work they have done, particularly in County Clare. It is from my constituency that a lot of the initiative has sprung. Deputy Daly spoke about the centre erected in Ennis — Cois na hAbhna. That centre was built with the aid of development funds through Clare County Council. Indeed, the site was given free by that council and much assistance was given voluntarily. The members in Clare worked voluntarily. As well as the classes for song and dance, they also have a premises utilised for Scoil Lán-Ghaeilge in Ennis. Comhaltas as a responsible body are providing both cultural and educational activities and, indeed, the centre in Monkstown, County Dublin, should be able to provide similar amenities. I would like to be on record as saying that I do not understand why people on the other side cannot acknowledge the generosity of the Minister in improving the guarantee from £200,000 to £300,000. I cannot see why they will not acknowledge that and go on with discussion of the Bill.
By mhaith liom aontú leis an leasú atá molta ag Deputy Woods. Sílim go bhfuil sé tábhachtach go dtuig feadh chuile dhuine an sár-obair atá á déanamh ag Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann agus nach bhfuilimid ag iarraidh tada as bealach nuair a iarraimid go dtabharfaí an t-airgead seo ar fad dóibh.
We have to recognise that the £200,000 mentioned by the Minister as being the sum which Fianna Fáil had decided on indicates that we had a Bill prepared and that the money should have been allocated long before now. I have asked the Taoiseach on numerous occasions when this Bill would be presented in the House. It was as a result of the guarantee which was given to Comhaltas that those funds would be made available that they contracted for certain works which have left them with high expenditure. They have a bank overdraft to face. While we accept that the Minister's gesture is worthwhile, in this instance he should go the whole distance and give the £500,000 we are suggesting in our amendment.
Since Comhaltas were founded in 1951 they have done a tremendous job not alone in the provision of music, the revival of music and our culture generally but they are recognised internationally. They have branches in every one of the Thirty-two Counties. The Cultúrlann is a show piece which people from all parts of the country can visit and be proud of the work done by Comhaltas but it is also recognised internationally as the centre piece of our cultural revival. Any moneys which we are about to expend should be given willingly to Comhaltas. We see the figures for other areas, such as £400,000 for ballet and £350,000 for opera while Comhaltas get only £125,000. I do not consider we are asking for too much when we suggest that this figure be increased to £500,000.
(Limerick East): There is nothing about ballet in the Bill.
I am making a suggestion to the Minister and to the Deputies on the far side of the House, after discussing the matter with Deputy Woods, that before we take a vote on this tonight after finishing the debate Deputies who have not visited the centre in Monkstown should go out there and see for themselves what Comhaltas have been doing and what has been provided there as a show piece by Comhaltas. I am quite sure the Deputies from the other side of the House and from this side of the House, who have not visited the Cultúrlann and who have not seen what they have been doing there, would feel justified in accepting our amendment.
It is of tremendous benefit to tourism. It is very hard to place a value on tourism when we are talking about what it does for our economy. Some of us met the people from the Federation of Irish Hotels this evening and they told us the income which comes from tourism in various ways. Comhaltas are contributing. They have their seisiúin at various centres throughout the country. We have somewhere to take our German, French and American visitors and they appreciate what we can give them. It is different from anything they can get anywhere else in the world. I suggest to the Minister and to the Government, when we finish debating this matter tonight, that we postpone voting on our amendment and give every Deputy an opportunity to go out to see the Cultúrlann in Monkstown and see what has been done there.
Comhaltas have been doing great work for the language. They have a programme for improving the Irish language, for using Irish terms for helping to ensure that people involved in musical production will try to do that through the medium of Irish. We could continue talking here for a long period tonight, going over the various things Comhaltas have been doing to improve our culture since it was established in 1951. I hate to see us dividing on this particular matter. It is not something the House should divide on. I am convinced, if the Deputies who have not visited the Cultúrlann visited it, they would overwhelmingly support our amendment in relation to the £500,000. If the Government had taken action sooner and brought this Bill before the House Comhaltas would not find themselves in the financial trouble they are in today. They undertook work on the understanding that this money would be made available to them fairly quickly. The Minister, in quoting our figure, is admitting that the Bill was prepared and ready so I cannot understand why we had to wait so long before it came to the House.
I was not going to speak on the amendment but listening to the trend of the debate there is a suggestion from across the House that this party are less committed to Comhaltas Ceóltóiri Éireann than their party. That is not true. Whatever about the remarks of Deputy Mac Giolla, who, as far as I am aware, has not said anything about this amendment, the party on the other side of the House had proposed £200,000 and the Minister proposed £250,000. In recognition of the concern on both sides of the House he has increased that to £300,000. Many people have a cynical view of the House and if we are going to get into this ridiculous Dutch auction that no matter what the Minister proposes the Opposition will raise the anti, it is an absurd way to carry on our business.
That is not the position. We proposed £500,000 some time ago.
The Opposition's figure was £200,000. That is a fact. I accept there is a delay.
That was 1982. If the Deputy read their letter he would see how their costs have escalated and the position has changed since 1982.
They are responsible for their costs, not this House.
This House delayed the Bill.
£200,000 in 1982 cannot possibly be worth more than £300,000, and is not worth £300,000 today. This Government are giving more than the Fianna Fáil Government were giving at the time. There is no question about that, no matter how you value the difference in money between 1982 and 1984. It is arrant nonsense to be carrying on this Dutch auction here, and it is dishonest politics.
I resent that. It is not worthy of the Deputy.
I support the Minister. It is a generous and fair response to the concern which we all share for the plight of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann.
I support the amendment to increase the allocation to £500,000. It is wrong of Deputies on the other side of the House to come in here just to defend their Minister. They should put their country and their culture first. Numerous members of the Government parties will be greatly embarrassed this evening. I support the suggestion by Deputy Gallagher that we should adjourn until such time as members on the far side of the House fully realise the implications of what they may be doing tonight if the House divides on this amendment.
The impression has been given this evening that this would be a bonus to these people, but Comhaltas require £500,000 to stay afloat. If we have any pride in our culture £200,000 is a small sum. The money is available. We are appealing to the Minister to leave politics aside. We will commend him if he agrees to leave politics aside. We know he was sent in here to do a job. He is acting on behalf of the Government. The people of the 26-counties and the 32-counties will applaud him if he agrees to do this. As was pointed out Comhaltas have 400 branches throughout the 32-countries. We have an opportunity tonight to help our fellow countrymen in the six counties where there are 60 branches. It is difficult for Comhaltas in the present circumstances, but they are doing an excellent job there. We should give full support to the 400 branches which include 60 branches in Northern Ireland.
I have had the opportunity to see the centre at Monkstown and, if everybody else saw it, they would feel obliged to allocate this money particularly when £200,000 is available. The decision we take here tonight will have repercussions on our culture for many years to come. The Minister will be remembered for many things, but he will certainly be remembered for the decision he takes if he puts it to a vote. We appeal to him to make this money available.
I support the amendment to increase the funds to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann to £500,000. On the point made by Deputy Coveney, I want to make it clear that this decision was reached in our party some weeks ago. In fact, the Government have reacted to our proposal to increase the amount. The allegation being made that we proposed to allocate a certain amount in 1982 is not relevant to the present day problems of Comhaltas. We faced up to the reality that Comhaltas are in a very serious situation. The £500,000 available to the Government under the Funds of Suitors Bill would solve their problems for the future, and ensure that the great work they are doing will continue.
We must all be very proud of the fact that Comhaltas provided the culture and tradition which entertained the President of the United States and his wife at Ballyporeen. Television pictures were shown in many countries throughout the world and particularly in America. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle should be aware that Comhaltas were responsible for the fine performance there. In all the President's tour, nothing was of a higher standing or standard than the performance of Comhaltas. The Government have decided to increase the grant to £300,000 but the Minister could increase the amount to £500,000. I would appreciate it if he would indicate to the House that he is prepared to reconsider his decision in the light of the views expressed by all sides of the House. If a free vote were taken on our amendment tonight I have no doubt that there would be a clear majority in favour of increasing the grant to Comhaltas.
The King's Inns is a fine building and a fine organisation, but it is a private organisation. It does not respond to the needs of the people of the whole country. Comhaltas have 400 branches spread throughout the country. They are represented in practically every village. They are a 32-county organisation. They are a national organisation with 60 branches in the northern part of our country. They represent our true culture and should be fully supported.
Deputy Coveney felt that we in Fianna Fáil were trying to project the image that we supported Comhaltas more than the Government side. It is quite obvious that we in Fianna Fáil fully support Comhaltas. We took a decision which was discussed in full at parliamentary party level to increase the allocation to £500,000. This decision was not taken because the Government had decided to give £250,000. If the Government had decided to allocate £500,000 we would have supported that proposal and an amendment would not have been necessary.
The Minister comes from a constituency in which Comhaltas are fully represented. He should support their aims and objectives. In my constituency next Sunday the Connacht Fleá Ceoil will be held in Strokestown by Comhaltas. I have been at many of their fleánna throughout the west of Ireland. They are contributing to the culture of our nation. They are preserving the very basis of our culture. They should not be forced to go from door to door to collect in support of their organisation. Tonight we have a great opportunity to support this amendment put down by our spokesman, Deputy Woods. We have an opportunity to increase the allocation to £500,000.
I appreciate the fact that the Minister is increasing the allocation to £300,000 but this is not a Dutch auction. We want to see it increased to £500,000. We are prepared to vote on that because we believe in the aims and objectives of Comhaltas. We believe the Irish people support that organisation. As Deputies, we should reflect the needs and requirements of the Irish people by supporting a national organisation. The ballet receive more money per annum from the State than Comhaltas.
The ballet is not in this Bill.
It is relevant to the issue. I am a member of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and a subscriber, so I should declare an interest in the organisation in County Roscommon. It is only right and proper that we should support that organisation. They are increasing their representation throughout the country and they are increasing their contribution to our culture. I have been in their national headquarters. It is a fine building and a well-built centre. It is right that we have a fine institute to reflect our culture. I urge the Minister to indicate that he is at least prepared to consider the proposals put forward and to accept the amendment put down by our party.
(Limerick East): I should like to thank the Deputies for their contributions. I intend to deal at this stage with amendments Nos. 3 and 4. In 1984 Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann will get £173,900 from Roinn na Gaeltachta, the Arts Council and the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am proposing that they will get £300,000 for their Cultúrlann. For 1984 that will be a total of £473,900. That is not a bad contribution from the State to an organisation——
It is not a contribution. The Minister should not misrepresent the situation.
(Limerick East): The Deputy does not like to hear the facts. It upsets him.
I love to hear the facts but the Minister is misrepresenting the situation.
(Limerick East): In the breakdown of that figure the grant from Roinn na Gaeltachta is £110,000, the Arts Council are contributing £59,700 and a further £4,000 or £5,000 will be provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
I was delighted to hear the contributions of all Deputies. I was particularly interested to hear the contributions of the Deputies opposite because it seems to me when they were in a position to do something they did very little but now when they are in a position to do very little they talk a lot. The facts are that in April 1982 when Fianna Fáil were in Government they decided that £200,000 was the appropriate figure to allocate to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí. When I published this Bill the amount was increased to £250,000 and on the basis of representations made to me by many people I increased the amount to £300,000. That is a generous contribution, and it is particularly generous in contrast with the penny-pinching approach of the Deputies opposite. When they had power they did very little but now when they are out of power they talk a lot.
The Minister is not big enough to accept what Deputy Gallagher said. He is too petty and political.
(Limerick East): What has happened is that as the strength of the lobby increased Deputies on the opposite side felt there was political mileage to be gained from organising a Dutch auction.
That is not true. It is nonsense and rubbish.
(Limerick East): This is a public manifestation of the concern of Deputies under pressure from a lobby——
No.
(Limerick East):—— and it has little to do with any particular strand of Irish culture or Irish life.
The Minister is too arrogant to appreciate the sincerity of the Deputies.
The Minister is prepared to let our culture go down the river for the sake of £200,000——
(Interruptions.)
Order. Deputies should allow the Minister to continue.
(Limerick East): I would appreciate it if Deputies opposite would allow me continue. I would particularly appreciate if Deputy Dr. Woods dropped his sincere bedside manner because the only bed he was near in a professional capacity was an onion bed. His bedside manner does not come across with great sincerity here tonight.
That is most unworthy of the Minister, even at this late hour, and he should withdraw what he said.
It is only typical.
Will the Minister please withdraw the remark?
(Limerick East): If I gave any offence I certainly withdraw it without reservation. I would not offend the Deputy.
It does not offend me. Two doctorates were not in onion beds and neither were they honorary doctorates.
(Limerick East): I was using a figure of speech to illustrate the mock sincerity of the Deputy's submissions tonight.
Deputy Tom O'Donnell might have made a mistake after all in bringing him here.
(Limerick East): Deputy Haughey made no mistake when he put the Deputy out. He knew the Deputy well. The Deputy should be careful that he does not come in and put him back on the back benches. He should not be on the front benches at all: he is not allowed there. As Deputy Taylor said, there was a report in the newspapers that Comhaltas Ceoltóirí would have been satisfied with £400,000. My experience in politics and in life generally is that people always ask for more than the actually need and more than they expect to get. I provided £300,000 but the Fianna Fáil Party want to provide £100,000 more than the people requested. It is no wonder we have a problem with the current budget deficit if that is their approach to finances.
(Interruptions.)
Order. The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption.
(Limerick East): I was very happy to move amendment No. 3. It is a vote of confidence by the two parties in Government in the work of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí. We appreciate what they do throughout the country. They are well organised and they make a major contribution to Irish life and Irish culture. We appreciate their music, what they do for young people, the way they are organised and their interest not only in Irish music but in Irish dance and the whole Irish way of life. We salute them for what they do but we must settle on a figure and on consideration of all the facts available to me I think £300,000 is the appropriate figure. People who are advocating a higher figure, without making a specific case on why it is necessary, are simply looking for the plaudits of an organisation which, however worthy, has organised a very strong lobby for this event tonight. Nobody in Fianna Fáil has justified £400,000, £500,000 or £600,000. The figure has been produced out of the air. It is a figure in excess of the request. I have assessed the situation and my belief is that Comhaltas Ceoltóirí this year will get from all sources a sum of £473,900. We are half-way through the year. Next year there will be an allocation from the Arts Council and from Roinn na Gaeltachta. Why do Deputies opposite not direct their lobbying to the newly constructed Arts Council——
The new Fine Gael Arts Council.
(Limerick East): No, it is not, it is drawn from all sectors of society. Many of the people in it have no known political persuasion. They are people in the area of the arts who are experts in their field.
An Leas-Cheann Comhaire
Let us leave the Arts Council out of this.
(Interruptions.)
(Limerick East): I know the present Fianna Fáil Party do not communicate very well with young people. The Arts Council has been drawn from young people and I understand the problem of contact. If they are unhappy about the level of grants being provided for the Irish Ballet. Company, the Abbey Theatre or any other segment of the block grant which the Arts Council dispenses and allocates to the whole cultural area, then they should lobby the members of the Arts Council and see if they will get a higher grant for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. Perhaps they will be justified in doing so and I will not oppose them.
In 1984 the Government, through their different agencies are providing almost £500,000 and the major contribution in that sum is the £300,000 which I am proposing tonight. Nobody on the other side of the House has given any reason to convince me that a different specific figure would be appropriate. Nobody has argued why the sum of £500,000 is necessary, why Comhaltas looked for £400,000 and why I am giving £300,000.
It will not get them out of their financial difficulties.
(Limerick East): I am willing to give £300,000 to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. It is a very generous contribution and nobody on the opposite side of the House has made a good case for increasing it.
We had a Second Stage discussion on the Bill this morning and I pointed to the level of indebtedness of this organisation. I said it would require a figure of the order of £500,000 to alleviate their financial problems. The Minister is glibly running from capital overheads to current requirements. This is a windfall fund, a once-off operation, and the Minister should stop lecturing us about how he, his Department and the Government allocate all the resources of State and how excellent they are. Indeed we could have a separate debate on the way the job is being done by the Government at present. This money has come into the possession of the State and it is available for distribution. The Minister and some of his backbenchers have alleged that the Minister allocated a sum of £250,000, that he then changed it to a sum of £300,000 and then went up as far as £500,000. That is nonsense.
As soon as the Bill was circulated it was debated at the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party and it was recognised by all present that a sum of £500,000 was required. Our amendment originated at that meeting. The Minister decided quite suddenly to introduce the Bill this week in the middle of the Criminal Justice Bill and all the other business going on until the small hours of the morning and we agreed. Our amendment was part of a discussion which took place in a genuine way. There has been an attempt here tonight to try to smear some Members on this side of the House which is despicable. Although it also happens in normal proceedings from time to time, we had thought that this Bill was exceptional and different and one which Members on all sides of the House would readily and willingly support.
We said at the outset that the extra £50,000 which the Minister was giving was very welcome and we are delighted that he has done so but it is still not enough. I will quote from a letter from Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann of 14 June 1984 which was sent to Deputies and Senators:
The proposed payment of £250,000 to Comhaltas from the Funds of Suitors will leave a further shortfall of almost the same amount in relation to the grant which was promised in 1981. In that year, we were promised £200,000 but as this was not paid, and as we could not meet our financial commitments on our new Folk Theatre, contracts were re-negotiated driving the price of the project up considerably.
The Minister must have read this and realised that things had changed dramatically from 1981 when the original proposal was made. That came in April as the Minister said, in a proposed Bill which, because of subsequent events, did not get to the House until now. The letter goes on:
We subsequently borrowed the money from the ICC and have since been charged considerable interest on this loan. We now earnestly ask your support in having the Funds of Suitors grant raised to £500,000.
The present debts of Comhaltas are in excess of £750,000. The Minister keeps talking about little grants of £4,000 and £59,000 which will help them with the running of the operation. On the grants which they are receiving it will be difficult enough for them to manage on a current basis and that is the point. If their current debts amount to a sum of £750,000, it must be quite obvious that we must throw a lifeline to them and give them the opportunity to clear the bulk of those debts by giving them £500,000 and leaving them to do the rest themselves. We know that the current moneys given to them have been reduced in real terms. This is in line with what has happened in other areas but they are concerned about their debts.
Apparently, when the promise of £200,000 was made in 1981 — Members on the other side of the House have made much play of this because it is probably the best political point they can throw into the debate——
The promise was made in 1982.
The promise was made in 1981. The Bill was prepared in April 1982 but the promise was made to Comhaltas in 1981. I read that for you a short time ago. Their current debts stand at £750,000. Deputy Carey is a businessman and must realise that if the current debts stand at £750,000 and their forward position is very difficult with a reduced grant, their position will be very serious. As I was saying, the sum of £200,000 was promised in 1981. The cost of the buildings at that time was in the order of £400,000 and apparently the £200,000 was related to that cost. They went ahead and got sub-contractors on the understanding that the money was allocated to them. The money did not come and late in 1982 they had to renegotiate their contract. Various amendments were made and they probably believed it would come soon after that. By the autumn of 1982 they had to borrow from the ICC and the total cost of the buildings was over £800,000.
Let us not talk about Fianna Fáil and try to throw glib, snide, cheap, petty remarks across the House especially at a time when people on this side of the House are trying to be serious and sincere. Anybody who spoke here was sincere and all they got were these snide remarks from the other side of the House. They should keep those for other occasions. At least this was an occasion on which we could approach something objectively and constructively without throwing in all the terms that the handlers suggest to the Minister, to try and demean Deputy Woods, in any way they can. That does not bother me in the least. What they have to say about me is irrelevant. They may get satisfaction from it, their handlers may enjoy it; they pass it on to the papers and something crops up in the papers the next day which is great fun. I have said before in this House and I say it again that what happens here in this House is the ultimate in democracy, not what appears in the papers. What appears in the papers is good fun and good sport for the day but what happens here in the House is what they have to face and, in relation to this section of this Bill——
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
You were not here earlier, a Cheann Comhairle, when scurrilous remarks were made by this Minister. If you have a word with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle you will find that is the reality.
I am asking the Deputy to relate his remarks to the Bill.
I am relating it to what the Minister said. In any event let us face facts. For whatever reason we have heard Ministers from that side of the House recently having to defend situations in which costs escalated in recent years because of delays in contracts and so on, and when special arrangements have had to be made. Perhaps this is a case in which something like that happened. Perhaps this House is to blame for having had so many elections and changes in the interim that delayed this Bill coming to the House. The Government cannot wave all the blame away because obviously they could have introduced it very much sooner also. Whatever the reason the cost of the buildings jumped from £400,000 to over £800,000 and that difference had to be met by them. Let us not start going back over the reasons. For instance, take the example of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards where there was a massive escalation in cost over a similar period which had to be dealt with and sorted out by the Government. Here we have the reality that the costs increased. Apparently the interest payable to the Industrial Credit Company is £80,000. In regard to the financial costs of running the building their calculations were entirely thrown out because their cash flow was disturbed. All of their earlier predictions had been based on the fact that this money would be forthcoming, that the contracts were to go ahead, that the cash flow was to function because they have various means of bringing in cash within the building——
On a point of order, might I ask Deputy Woods to explain how the costs——
That is not a point of order.
How the £80,000 interest arose because I should like to know.
That is not a point of order and Deputy Carey should resume his seat.
I am telling the House what is the current interest charge from the ICC. I am not interested in how it arose. Now we are reverting to the Government and their running of their Departments. That is the very thing I have been saying to Deputies.
Where did the Deputy get the figure?
That is the actual figure. I got it because I asked for it. Why did the Minister not ask for the figure? Why did the Minister not ask for the other figures instead of throwing petty remarks at this side of the House? Why did he not tell his own backbenchers what happened with the buildings? Why did he not tell them about the escalated costs instead of leading them in to make comments?
They are not all buildings.
What is the point of going into that?
Deputy Connaughton can worry about a building in his constituency.
What about Seán Flanagan's £500 million?
We will have pleasure in giving some of it to Ballyforan.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
The main concern of the people over there is to allocate blame to somebody else. They want to allocate blame to somebody. They want to blame Fianna Fáil, if they can and, if they can get away with that with the media, leading them off on another errand to print something that will knock Fianna Fáil. The fact of the matter is that it has nothing to do with Fianna Fáil. Both of us, as Governments, were responsible for the fact that delay occurred in this case — that is the first point — and that upset these people in the job they were doing. Perhaps that happens much too often in government, in public administration, that people are delayed, they are given promises, undertakings and, because of the inefficiency of the operations of the whole system of Government, the undertakings or promises are not delivered in anything like the time intended originally. Consequently people are left in considerable difficulty. The fact of the matter is that the cost escalated to that extent. Also the fact of the matter is that their present indebtedness is in excess of £750,000. Let us take the position as it obtains today and not go back into the history of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or anybody else. What are we going to do about the current situation? What we have suggested is that from this windfall money which is available we should do something for that sector. The Minister agrees with that and has gone some of the way. We contend that, by going that much of the way only, we are leaving them still in financial difficulty. We suggest that the Government go the whole way affording them a good opportunity to get on with the job. Initially we were not differing with the Minister, we welcomed what he was doing but we just felt that an amount of £500,000 would be necessary. It has nothing to do with Dutch auctions or anything like that. It is a question of what is the reality of the present position in regard to that organisation. On that basis we would ask the Minister to reconsider the position. If he has not been given all that information then, in the meantime, he should satisfy himself that that is the real position because that is the position as we understand it.
Is amendment No. 3 agreed?
I welcome this Bill. I support the amendment put forward by my party requesting the Minister to increase the contribution to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann to £500,000. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that we have not even attempted to justify this figure. It must be clear from what our spokesman has said that we have clearly justified the figure.
The Minister should realise that in every parish, hamlet, town and county there are people working continuously, on a voluntary basis, for the expansion and development of our culture our music, song and dance that are unrivalled throughout the world. The involvement of so many people in a voluntary capacity alone justifies the fact that this great organisation, great cultural institution is entitled to moderate financial support. The Minister should realise also that this organisation runs 600 classes weekly in which are involved over 50,000 people throughout the length and breadth of this land. We must remember that we live in times when multi-channel, modern satellite communications have brought about a situation in which our culture must now compete with alien cultures and other influences heretofore unknown in this country. As representatives of people with this identity we must ensure that it is preserved, that the opportunity for so many people to be involved and make a contribution to the preservation of that identity is sustained, so that we parliamentarians will not be found wanting in the provision of the necessary finances to ensure the continued development of our culture.
We must also realise the tremendous tourist attraction our culture has been, the numbers of tourists who go away always remembering the music, song and dance so typically Irish, so entertaining and valuable to our country. We must remember that these voluntary groups go abroad constantly giving displays of traditional music, song and dance in foreign parts. These people week after week, month after month, year after year, go abroad voluntarily and give displays of traditional music, song and dance in foreign places. Not alone does that help to bring together our many emigrants in cities and towns throughout the world, but foreigners get an opportunity of hearing our songs and seeing our dances performed and then they come to Ireland for that reason alone.
The Deputy will have to relate his remarks to the amendment.
I am relating them to the importance of this great organisation. The Minister says that there is no case for £500,000. I am making a case——
(Limerick East): A financial case.
——on the basis of the numbers and their involvement. We are basing our case on the necessity to support this organisation, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, who are making contribution to our counry in a voluntary capacity. Even the staff, of that institution have not been paid for some time. I have no objection to whatever investment goes into the King's Inns because we must have lawyers and other people involved to ensure that our judicial system is right and that justice is available to every person, but they are a minority grouping. Compare them with the masses involved in our culture, our songs and dances, through the organisation of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, Surely that alone is clear proof of the necessity to give them the type of financial support we are seeking for them. It is important that we preserve our Irish identity. Because we have been for a number of years part of a major international forum, the EEC, it is more important than ever that we preserve that identity.
That is a Second Reading speech.
Under this Government we have lost our direction and one could say that we have lost our money.
The Deputy has lost his direction.
(Interruptions.)
I am delighted that Deputy Shatter is interested in our culture. I am surprised that Deputy Carey, coming from the home of culture, County Clare, should object to this case that we are making tonight for support for our culture.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Carey should resume his seat.
This is a very serious debate on an important Bill. I appeal to the Government through the Minister to ensure that we preserve our identity and that this money will be made available.
The Deputy will have to relate his remarks to the amendment. He has not spoken to the amendment since he stood up.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 57.
Tá
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West)
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett (Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and Briscoe.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, subsection (2), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following paragraph:
(d) not more than £100,000 may, on the application of the Minister for Labour, be applied in or towards the defrayal of the cost of the Community Youth Recreational and Employment Programme administered by the Minister for Labour.
Under this amendment I am proposing to make an amount of £100,000 from the dormant balances in the funds of suitors available to the Minister for Labour for the purposes of providing additional funding for the Community, Youth, Recreational and Employment Programme which is administered by the Department of Labour. Funds available for that programme are used on a nationwide basis to help finance the construction of community recreational facilities. No new funding has been provided for the programme since 1981 and I understand that all of the financial resources hitherto available to the programme are committed to existing projects so that no new projects can be grant-aided without the commitment of additional resources. The Minister of State at the Department of Labour has already indicated, in the course of the debate earlier today on the Second Stage, who the beneficiaries will be under the proposed amendment.
I take it that the funds are to be given to the Minister for Labour to go with the normal balances he would have to deal with. Will the Minister of State tell us how much the Minister for Labour is receiving from the youth employment levy?
(Limerick East): The moneys from the youth employment levy are not relevant. This is a fund for community and youth project centres. No money has been allocated for these since 1981. There are a number of unfinished projects in different parts of the country and a small sum of State money, matched by local funds, would enable these projects to be completed.
I asked the Minister the amount of money which the Minister for Labour received from the youth employment levy.
(Limerick East): I do not have any briefing note on that. It is not relevant to this. This amendment is for a fund to which no new resources have been allocated since 1981. Projects which were grant-aided then have not been finished, for example, the community centre in Ennistymon in County Clare, the one in Banteer, County Cork and others. The allegation that the youth employment levy is allocated to the Department of Labour is not relevant to this discussion.
It is in the sense that the point was made on Second Stage that it might be possible to find moneys to enhance those from that fund and the contributions made by taxpayers in that area. It is for that reason I thought the Minister might have had the figure. Obviously he does not.
(Limerick East): It would be as relevant to ask for an explanation of all the funds in the Department of Justice and what the full budget was. This money is not allocated to youth employment but specifically for centres where grants were discontinued in 1981. The projects had reached a certain point in their development and there is a series of white elephant projects around the country. A small input by the State now could be matched by local funds which, in some cases, would enable projects to be finished completely and in other cases brought to a point where the community could make use of them.
On Second Stage a number of Deputies on this side asked questions about the youth employment levy. Whether such funds are used is irrelevant. The Government have power to use funds in whatever way they suggest to the House. The Minister indicated earlier that sums of £5,000 or £10,000 would be given to a series of different projects which needed additional funding. Since these are special windfall funds there would appear to be funds available to the Government on a more regular basis which could be used in this direction. It was for that reason that I asked how much the funds are at present. The Minister does not have the figure so I will leave it at that.
The point made by Deputy Woods repeats in more moderate terms the points made by Deputy Tunney. There has for some time been an ongoing programme of capital grants whereby youth groups and com munity groups received State support on the basis that a local contribution is matched by support from the State. This year's estimates provided a sum of £1.2 million for that purpose. That is an increase of 25 per cent on last year's figure. It has come to my notice that there are a number of community centres which received State support in the past and found the funding inadequate, even if matched by local funds, to complete the project. It also relates to groups who did not receive any State funding but who are now in difficulty.
This proposal allows me to select a number of groups all of which have shown tremendous local drive, initiative and commitment and to say that we admire what they are doing and the achievements they have made in collecting their level of funding to date. We will give them a small amount of money to help them out of their difficulties and enable them to finish their projects. As regards the groups which have been selected that is the position with each one of them. In each case the group are finding it heavy weather to complete their project and a relatively small injection of State funds could make all the difference. It is a splendid way to use the funds available under this Bill. If we think of the way funds which became available in the past have been used, this is in accordance with the tradition of helping volunteers and those involved in working with young people.
The amendment moved by the Minister for Justice gives expression to the principles about which Deputy Tunney spoke at considerable length. He praised the principle of volunteering and suggested it was not adequately recognised by Governments in the past. This amendment does that and helps groups made up of people who give their time voluntarily. It is saying that we know what they have done and know what has been achieved and we are determined to see that they succeed.
Do I take it that projects have already been earmarked for payment?
Yes.
What criteria were laid down for the selection of these?
I read the list in my brief contribution on Second Stage. The criteria were as I have indicated. A small amount of cash at this stage would represent a morale boost to the local community so as to enable them to finish the project they had embarked upon and which would be too difficult for them to complete otherwise. The list is: Ennistymon, County Clare will receive a grant of £9,000. Banteer, County Cork will receive £5,000 for their community centre. That is a project which is in some difficulty. They were not able to complete the final details of plumbing, heating and so on. The Dromtariffe community centre is getting £10,000. The Irish Wheelchair Association in Blackheath will get £5,000. That is a much bigger project but it is a volunteer group working with the disabled and they have taken on an enormous burden in terms of interest repayments. It represents the Oireachtas saying that we want to support them and stand in solidarity with them. They have already indicated just how appreciative they are for that sum. In the case of Durrow, County Laois, a figure of £3,000 is being given for a community centre which is all but completed. Caherdavin, County Limerick will receive £11,000 and South Hill will receive £5,000. This is a community working in an area of high unemployment. With all the odds stacked against them they have been extraordinarily successful in raising funds. This injection of capital in the closing stages of the project will put them over the hump. In Newcastlewest a sum of £9,000 will be given for the community centre and Emyvale will receive £5,000. That is a community with particular difficulties and it was an enourmous achievement when the small group collected well over £150,000. In Cashel, Larkspur Park was a site donated by Mr. Guest to the local community. There is a substantial project under way but the local group are unable to continue supporting it and there is a danger that the project might turn into a white elephant. However, an injection of capital will turn it around. In Nenagh a sum of £14,000 is being given for the athletics complex about which the Ceann Comhairle will know so much. A sum of £5,000 is being given to the Catholic Youth Council's outdoor centres in Wicklow. This project involves the provision of three outdoor centres. The difficulty is that their interest repayments are inhibiting their day-to-day activity in serving young people.
The sports complex at Mullingar, County Westmeath, will receive a sum of £5,000 — a small contribution for a very large project involving the local community raising well over £500,000. They have made very substantial progress but now find that the pace is becoming quite difficult. This is an attempt to tell them we know that this is a difficult time for them and we want to show our support for them in the hope and expectation that this allocation will assist their efforts in local fund raising.
From the Minister's list I noticed that Connacht has been blacked again. I did not hear him mention one centre in Connacht. Surely good work in the provision of community centres is being done in Connacht where unemployment is higher than anywhere else in the country. Why have the Government blacked Connacht once again? I am sure Deputy Coogan is not amused.
I find it extraordinary that the Opposition have chosen this amendment to raise a series of question marks. This is a very welcome amendment. Deputy Woods said this money is a windfall. I accept that description because this is a once-off sum. It is extremely important that the benefits of this windfall should be felt throughout the community. Nobody would appreciate more than a north city representative how greatly many community centres need this injection of funds. My regret is not that this amount is being spent but that more money is not being spent. This money, as well as the money allocated for the Children's Court and the legal aid system, are most welcome; but I only wish they could have been more extensive.
There is no doubt but that the projects listed by the Minister of State are very worthy, but there are hundreds of other very worthy projects which have not been touched. But that is not the point. The point is that here the Minister of State has succeeded in persuading his colleague, the Minister for Justice, to give £100,000 to make up for the cutbacks in his Department and for the misuse of the youth employment funds. Here is money going from the Funds of Suitors Bill to a Government Department. I object to that, and we should all object to it. There are many community projects to which this money should be allocated. This money should not be allocated to make up for cutbacks in Department's Estimates. The Minister of State has not been able to persuade the Minister for Finance, Deputy Dukes, to give him £100,000 but he succeeded in persuading poor Deputy Noonan, the Minister for Justice, to give him this £100,000 out of this windfall. This is not hurting any taxpayers and fair dues to the Minister of State for persuading the Minister to do this. In my view this is wrong and we should not allow it to happen.
The Department of Education could grab another £100,000 to help leisure centres which do not have funding. There are hundreds of these centres not only in Dublin but all around the country. The Minister of State has succeeded in taking this money which is required for other community projects. The Minister for Justice is using £1 million to build a children's court. His Department should have provided this money. Again this money is being given to a Government Department to make up the money the Minister for Finance did not provide.
We are supporting this but we have to point out that if the Government cannot find £3,000 for one project or £5,000 for another, when the community are working so hard and contributing all they can, they should have another look at how they are allocating money. As Deputy Mac Giolla said, this is a windfall, a once-off situation and the money should be made available to the Minister to fund these very worthwhile projects.
I remember when a previous Minister was given £5 million in one year. Now this Minister is being criticised for giving this money. If the Government were imaginative in their approach they would provide this money and help the Minister for Justice to solve his problems with crime and youth. Perhaps then Deputy Flaherty would get her major sports centres in Finglas——
It is on the way. It will happen in January next——
It should have happened before this.
A sum of £166,000 was provided in my Estimate for the building of the centre——
The Minister has been looking after us.
I am very glad to hear that because I was very disappointed when the Coalition cut Finglas and Bonny-brook out and——
That is not true.
I have the documentation if the Deputy wants to see it and I will show it to her anytime.
(Interruptions.)
These were two very important projects. As I said, we are not objecting to this, but this is not the way these special funds should be spent. If the Minister had in mind a special project which needed exceptional funds it would be appropriate to allocate these funds. Nobody could object to giving small sums of money, if they are available to different projects. We are glad to see them getting this money and as a percentage of the total amount being allocated to the Departments, these are very small amounts.
I welcome this amendment and congratulate the Minister of State for being so successful in getting £100,000 from his colleague the Minister for Justice. I am only familiar with one of the named places, that is Cashel. I had the privilege to visit Larkspur Park together with the Minister of State and the local committee comprising of all political shades. The Minister was amazed at the voluntary work which had been almost completed in Larkspur, but unfortunately they ran out of funds. The Minister gave an undertaking to try to get funds to enable them to fulfil this very worthwhile project. When communicating this information to the people this evening they were thrilled in anticipation, that £14,000, if allocated, would enable them to complete this project.
(Interruptions.)
This will give them the necessary fillip to continue with the splendid voluntary work they are doing for the community and for the youth of Cashel.
We wish them all the best.
I want to put on record the disgraceful treatment Connacht has received. Surely the Minister of State could have found a centre in Connacht worthy of support. This shows once again the complete lack of interest this Government have in doing anything for the people of the west. This is in line with what we are getting from other Departments, and it is disgusting that we have been left out in this way and not having some grant provided for any of the five counties of Connacht.
I am surprised that Deputy Gallagher should let down his county and province in that fashion. We are dealing with groups who set themselves targets and could not quite reach those targets. The happy situation is that the many community associations in Connacht who have been involved in various schemes were able to draw on a tremendous level of community support and were able to proceed on target. In the past few months I have been up and down every county in Connacht and have seen for myself the success with which the communities there have taken on board the various schemes to provide community centres.
In other words, the Minister of State has been looking after the lame ducks.
There are the capital programmes, the AnCO community training programme and the youth employment scheme. Unless Deputy Gallagher might think this is all I have in my basket, there are some groups in Connacht who are seeking assistance, who are anxious for further funds, and I will not ignore them.
(Limerick East): I thank the Minister of State for explaining the £100,000 allocation and its full breakdown. I thank Deputy Woods for accepting the spirit of the amendment. Without doubt, all Deputies could provide lists which could be justified, but on this occasion the priorities the Minister of State has decided on should be supported by all of us. I have a vested interest in the allocation, and it surprises me that Deputy Mac Giolla has taken such a narrow view of justice, crime prevention and law enforcement. I think it is almost a rule of thumb that if young people have nothing to do and nowhere to go they get into trouble, and as the Minister for Justice I have an interest in the provision of community facilities, particularly for young people, throughout the country. I cannot understand Deputy Mac Giolla's attitude to this Bill. He is opposed to money being allocated to provide facilities for our young people and he is opposed to the building of a children's court in Dublin.
I am opposed to the cutbacks——
(Limerick East): Has the electoral disaster of The Workers' Party caused fundamental revision of their position?
Like Deputy Gallagher, I am particularly interested in Connacht. The Minister of State said that it was to those who had shown the ability to move forward he had contributed money. Because of the time limit, I am tempted to meander away from the subject before us and appeal to the Minister on behalf of a group whom I consider to be very successful and need all the support they can get. They have honoured Ireland——
Will you meander back to the matter before the House?
The Leader of the Opposition meandered back and forward between sections 2 and 3 for half an hour — I am asking for only two minutes. I merely wanted to ask the Minister to consider donating funds to a very worth-while cause, the drama group in Galway who have had great success internationally and at home but when they go home to Galway do not have a theatre of their own. Therefore, I ask the Minister to contribute up to £150,000 for a theatre for them. I am sure Deputy Gallagher would be pleased if we were to get that.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 has been ruled out of order.
I was taken by surprise earlier today. I was not here when a notice of motion was put by the Minister giving an instruction to the Committee. When that motion was passed it altered the position in relation to my amendment.
Your amendment has been ruled out of order.
That happened before the Minister's motion had been passed. The passing of that motion altered the position in relation to my amendment. The amendment we have just passed would have been out of order if it were not for that motion.
Your amendment is still out of order. You were so informed, and we cannot have a discussion on it. I have given the Deputy his answer. The ministerial motion did not affect your amendment. I hope you will accept the ruling of the Chair. Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are consequential and may be taken together, by agreement.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No 7:
In page 3, subsection (2) (d) (i), line 23, to delete "and".
The purpose of the amendment is to enable me to use some residual balances remaining in the dormant account after the specific commitments referred to in section 3 have been covered, for the purpose of financing the provision of legal aid services in addition to miscellaneous court projects to be decided.
It is not possible to say what the value of the residual amounts will be until the cost of completing the children's court project becomes known but the amendment would enable me to provide some added funding for legal aid services. I trust Deputies will appreciate that I am not in a position now to give any firm commitment about where the remaining funding will go. There are various options and I will have to examine each carefully before I make a decision.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are simply consequential. However, there is a matter which makes it difficult for me to estimate what the residual amount will be, apart from the cost of the children's court. It is that I do not know when the sums of money being provided under section 3 will be drawn down. Until they have been drawn down, obviously there will be a interest accruing. If they are drawn down later rather than sooner the residue will be higher.
I take it we are talking about a sum of approximately £300,000. I am not trying to tie the Minister to the exact sum.
(Limerick East): The estimated amount for the children's court is £650,000. I am working on the understanding that it will be between £750,000 and £850,000. The residue at the moment is approximately £1.1 million. We are probably talking about £500,000 but that could be increased if the funds are not drawn down for a long period. The interest would go up very quickly.
This was discussed on the Second Stage this morning. It comes back to the question of making adequate funds available. I suppose staff will be one of the problems and I hope that when funds are made available any staff embargo will not affect the matter. Staff are moving on for one reason or another and therefore the staff embargo could cause a problem. A serious situation is developing. We support this useful provision of moneys, but future Governments will have to consider how to deal properly with this area of civil legal aid and make adeqate provision, always bearing in mind that the cost can become too great. It is that fact which has held back Ministers for Justice and perhaps has caused Ministers for Finance to hold them back. In any event, this is an interim measure which we welcome as an aid in an area which has serious problems. Amendment agreed to.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 8:
In page 3, subsection (2) (d) (ii), line 29, to delete "determine" and to substitute "determine, and".
Amendment agreed to.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 9:
In page 3, subsection (2) (d), between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following subparagraph:
"(iii) the cost of the provision of such services for the provision of legal aid in civil cases as the Minister for Justice may determine.".
On this amendment, I am putting in a further plea to that made on Second Stage for a community law centre in Tallaght. When the Minister becomes aware of the amount of money which is available and is considering uses for it, he might note that the law centre in Coolock is very efficiently run by the community and is of vital importance to it. This centre is doing a much greater service than the Government's free legal aid services and at much less cost. There is very little cost to the taxpayers. A similar centre is required in Tallaght. The community there believe that it would cost them £64,000 to £70,000 actually in 1984 terms. It would be of tremendous benefit if the community had a guarantee of three years, and they are looking for something in the region of £200,000. The Minister should have a look at the operation of the Coolock centre — I am sure that he has already — and at the desert land out in Tallaght where the people have nothing. There is a population of 70,000 out there and any small town in Ireland has better services and more facilities. A law centre there would be of tremendous help. I am appealing to the Minister to make that one of his priorities in allocating the money, rather than putting it all into free legal aid centres. The funds are required for that because they are so far behind, but a community centre in Tallaght is suggested and perhaps one in Ballymun or some other similar centres. These should be a major priority for the Minister.
Very briefly, there is a requirement for the establishment of a law centre in Tallaght and I hope the Minister will be able to meet that requirement. I have met the group who intend to set up a FLAC centre there. Of course, there are a number of problems with a large population in a developing area. The area has not received the recognition which it should have as an important urban centre. It would be of immense assistance to the sense of social cohesiveness in Tallaght if a law centre could be set up. Money under this heading would be ideally spent in providing such a facility and most social workers will agree to the need for this. I hope the Minister can meet the needs of the good people of the FLAC centre who reckon that on a three-year basis it would require certain funding which could be met under this amendment.
I shall be extremely brief. I raised this matter on Second Stage. For the first time since I came into this House I am finding myself in agreement with Deputy Mac Giolla and I welcome the comments made by Deputy Michael O'Leary. I urge the Minister to consider making funds available for the community law centre in Tallaght as rapidly as possible. I spoke at length on this matter on Second Stage and will now only make one point. The Minister seems to be envisaging spending the funds which are available in the context of the children's court and then seeing what is left over and making provisions. He appeared to be saying that there would be sufficient funds to provide the children's court, as I suggested this morning, and the court buildings. It is clear that the funds are there to do so. However, the amount left over is not known.
It would seem that the Minister could, with ease at this stage, when the Bill will have passed all Stages in both Houses, make available funds to establish a free legal advice centre in celebration of the ten years of existence of the Coolock community law centre which I had the pleasure of being involved in opening. It would allow commencement on a new project of providing a community law centre in Tallaght before the end of this year. I urge the Minister to make funds available this year rather than allow them to accumulate and generate interest over two or three years to provide the purpose-built Children's Court which the Minister is proposing. I hope the Minister will consider that very seriously and, if he has not done so, will meet with the council of the free legal aid advice centres with a view to taking steps towards meeting their reasonable requests.
I should also like to welcome the intent indicated by the Minister in this amendment. This, along with other comments by the Minister during all stages, would indicate that he is reviewing the value which the State and the public are getting for money in free legal aid, with a view to making significant changes. This is particularly welcome. I support the case made by other Deputies in relation to the value of community law centres in areas where many people will need a range of advice on legal matters. The Coolock community law centre has proved itself to be a valuable contributor to a wider range of services than is available in the legal aid centres, while they also have a value and a place in the system. I would encourage an extension of these community law centres. I urge the Minister to do what he can to remove the regular dilemma facing the Coolock law centre year in year out as to its future. Deputies have made a plea for areas like Tallaght. Another area which would have an immediate need and an obvious population which could support a community law centre is the Finglas-Ballymun area. Other urban areas, I am sure, would repeat this pattern of need. I ask the Minister, in the commitment made in this amendment to look seriously at these areas and these needs.
(Limerick East): I am not prepared to give any specific commitments on the actual allocation of the funds here. Obviously, Deputies have views on where there is a need for legal aid centres. I should like to discuss the position in Tallaght with Deputy O'Leary and the other Deputies. There is a country beyond Newland's Cross as well and other Deputies might have views about that.
There are other urban areas.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have been trying to get in on section 3 for a while.
I am giving the Deputy an opportunity of so doing now.
This is the Deputy's moment.
I wanted an opportunity to say something on this section. Under subsection (2) (a), the Taoiseach and the Minister for the Arts, who is present, are provided with a sum of £600,000. I want to emphasise that there have been no capital grants provided at all for the arts in the past year or so. References made earlier tonight to various groups getting certain sums of money are incorrect. These got no capital grants at all.
I want to refer to one project in particular which, while it is centred in Cork, is a national project, the Irish National Ballet Company. They are erecting a new headquarters in Cork. It is one of the few opportunities nowadays for real meaningful decentralisation of any sector of a publicly supported activity. I ask the Minister to be generous in this respect. Apart from the fact that it is the first major training and educational centre for this particular art form built in this country it is also a major urban renewal project in the centre of the oldest part of Cork.
The figures are daunting. Cork Corporation are giving £50,000. An appeal is being made for an EEC grant of £25,000 to £30,000. Public contributions from industry and individuals will represent at least 75 per cent of the total funding of about £900,000. I hope the State will allocate about one quarter of the £600,000 available to the Taoiseach's Department and to the Minister for the Arts. If that money is provided quickly it will enable this project to commence and will enable it to be completed during 1985 which, by a happy coincidence, is the 800th anniversary of the city of Cork. I urge the Minister to allocate £150,000 to this project.
We have to point out that it is the Taoiseach to whom the Deputy will have to make representations once we agree to the allocation of this sum tonight. The other items which have not been dealt with in detail, because the amendments did not relate directly to them, include the provision of the Children's Court and the provision of the funds to the Minister to spend as he may see necessary in relation to the extension, repair and maintenance of other buildings and services relating to the courts. These are very worthy objects and we support them. We are back to the basic principle we were talking about earlier, the use of these funds. We know that the capital programme in the Department of Justice was reduced by approximately £6 million. The Minister may say that just delayed the prison building programme or some other aspects but these are things which should be provided for in the annual allocations. Nevertheless, they are not being provided and, consequently, we support the Minister in his request to have some of the funds allocated in that direction.
Obviously we all want to see a suitable children's court. We want to see a modern building with proper facilities. Maintenance and repair, which are provided in subsection (2) (e) (ii) are what one would consider would normally be provided for in the annual allocation. The Minister has taken a number of imaginative steps during the debate on the Bill and we will not oppose him in relation to this because otherwise he may not get his children's court for some time. We agree with it while pointing out in principle that it would be preferable if the State provided this.
(Limerick East): I would like to thank Deputy Woods for his observations.
Earlier tonight I mentioned the request I put in for £150,000. At the time I was out of order so I would like to get back into order now. One cannot ask for a sum as large as that without some justification. I have asked the Minister to bring this request to the notice of the Taoiseach. It is based on the fact that Galway for a very long time have only had one theatre, the Taidhbhearc. That theatre did wonderful work for a long time but Galway also needed an English theatre. Into the void came a very young group called Druid who, with very little funding brought great acclaim to Irish theatre by going abroad and winning many awards. They have come to Dublin on successive occasions and have taken the city by storm. It is a terrible thing to feel that when these young people go home to Galway they have no theatre. It is because they have done so well that I feel I am justified in making this request. I am glad to see the Minister of State, Deputy Nealon, here tonight. I ask him to give every consideration to this young group who have not any theatre. If they decided to build the theatre I ask the Minister to go further than the £150,000 I asked him to give tonight. I am sure Deputy Woods or the National Ballet would not disagree with this.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I have one very brief comment to make, that is that in this section the commissioners are being given power to carry out certain works. It is an enabling section. These works relate to the King's Inns at Henrietta Street and the adjoining gardens. We had some discussion on this earlier. I ask the Minister to consider specifying some conditions in relation to the allocation of these funds. I know the hall is given free of charge for charitable organisations from time to time, for State functions and other public use. In allocating these funds there should be some formal recognition of the spirit in which they are allocated. Perhaps the Minister would consider this before the funds are paid over.
(Limerick East): This is an enabling section. No money will be given to the Society of King's Inns. The money will be allocated to the Office of Public Works to carry out only the works specified here. The works cannot cost more than £600,000. If they do the money will not be drawn from this fund or from Government funds. It will have to be put up independently.
With regard to commitments, I take the point made by the Deputy. I have some commitments already, continuing use of the premises if needed for the High Court, public access to the library in Henrietta Street for anybody who has a legitimate interest in using it and access to the park which is there already. I have some views also on the access of students to the courses. While I have not got a commitment on that we have the basis for opening a discussion.
I would like to register my opposition to this section. The Office of Public Works should be restoring public buildings, not private buildings. If this building is so worthy of renovation and if two-thirds of it is already supposed to be occupied or owned by the State — I am not sure which it is — or State companies, the State should take over the building if they are to ask the Office of Public Works to renovate it. Since I was late on the earlier section in relation to the allocation of the £600,000 for the job, I want to use this section to register my objection to this.
It is now midnight and I must, in accordance with the order of the House, put the following question: "That the Bill as amended is hereby agreed to and, as amended, is reported to the House, and that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.
Question put and agreed to.