Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jun 1984

Vol. 351 No. 9

Funds of Suitors Bill, 1984: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Noonan,

Limerick East): I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time”.

The object of this Bill is to enable part of the funds of suitors vested in the Accountant of the Courts of Justice to be withdrawn and applied for the various purposes indicated in sections 3 and 4 of the Bill.

The funds of suitors are the cash and securities belonging to suitors and other persons which have been transferred to or paid into or deposited with the High Court. They consist of moneys or investments transferred or paid into or deposited in court either under the provisions of one or other of a number of statutes —for example the Auctioneers and House Agents Act, 1947—or under Rules of Court — for example Order 22 which provides for the lodgment of a sum of money in satisfaction of a claim before or at the time of delivery of the defence in certain types of action — or under some judgment or order of the court made in an administration suit or in some other form of proceedings, or in the form of dividends or interest on court investments or bank deposits.

In the ordinary way these funds may be used only for the benefit of those entitled to them. However, a small proportion of the funds is represented by unclaimed balances and dividends which have been accumulating over a long period—some as long as two centuries. These are know as dormant funds and may be defined more precisely as balances in accounts in the funds of suitors which have not been active for 15 years or more. I should explain that these funds are essentially a phenomenon of the past and that funds do not become dormant in recent times to any significant extent. The funds of suitors are under the control of the High Court and subject to that control are managed by, and stand in the name of, the Accountant of the Courts of Justice.

The total liability of the accountant in respect of all funds of suitors on 30 September 1983—the latest date for which there are published figures—was just over £98,621,000. Assets held by the accountant, consisting of cash and securities, amounted to £97,343,000 on that date. The difference between the amount of liabilities and assets on hands on 30 September 1983 was £1,278,000. This represents the aggregate of the moneys which have been withdrawn from the funds of suitors over the past 200 years under the authority of various Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Oireachtas. All these Acts indemnified suitors for any loss which they may sustain by reason of the withdrawals, and these indemnities are backed by the Central Fund. Another way of saying this is that a portion of the funds of suitors, at present amounting to £1,278,000, is not represented by cash or securities held by the accountant, but simply by the liability of the State to indemnify suitors against any loss up to that amount.

Moneys withdrawn from the funds of suitors under Acts passed before the establishment of the Oireachtas were applied for such purposes as building and improving the Courts of Justice and enlarging the Law Library. Coming up to modern times, withdrawals from the funds were authorised by the Oireachtas in 1959, 1963 and in 1966 as follows:

The Funds of Suitors Act, 1959, enabled a total of £323,000 to be withdrawn for three purposes, namely, to provide assistance towards the rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre, to finance repair and renovation of the buildings of the Society of King's Inns and to provide for the creation of a fund for the maintenance of the society's library.

The Funds of Suitors Act, 1963, authorised the release of a sum of £50,000 to help finance the rebuilding of the Cork Opera House.

The funds of Suitors Act, 1966, authorised the release of £450,000 to help finance the cost of rebuilding the Abbey Theatre and the completion of the Cork Opera House.

As I mentioned, the total of the sums withdrawn to date from the funds of suitors is £1,278,000. There remained on 31 May 1984 in the dormant accounts assets consisting of cash on deposit and securities to the total nominal value of £2,817,000. The market value of these assets is marginally higher.

The money to be withdrawn under the Bill will actually be channelled through the current cash account which is maintained by the accountant of the High Court in the Bank of Ireland to meet all his cash liabilities to suitors on foot of both dormant and live accounts. As in the case of the previous withdrawals I mentioned, the Bill affords a complete indemnity to suitors by which they will be absolutely protected from any possible loss resulting from the withdrawal of funds under the provisions of this Bill. I should add that nothing that is proposed in the Bill will affect the rights or the ability of suitors to make claim to any of the dormant funds that it is proposed to withdraw.

Before I turn to the objects for which the money would be used, I feel I should make it clear that certain provisions in the Bill are intended to honour commitments given by previous administrations. These are the provisions in relation to the funding of work needed for the repair and renovation of the King's Inns building, and the provision of funds for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. In particular the commitment regarding the King's Inns work was given expression to in the Funds of Suitors Bill, 1981, which made considerable progress under the previous two administrations before it lapsed on the dissolution of the last Dáil.

As a further preliminary point, I should mention that since I introduced the Bill in the House, the Government decided that certain amendments should be introduced to the provisions of the Bill. These will provide for some reallocation of funds within the overall amount that may be withdrawn under the terms of the Bill, but they will not involve any change in the overall position. I will refer to the particular amendments at appropriate points in my speech.

The Taoiseach already announced on 27 February the decision to allocate £600,000 for capital projects in the arts field from the funds that are to be withdrawn under the provisions of this Bill. I am aware that the Minister of State for Arts and Culture, Deputy Ted Nealon, in whose area of responsibility this matter comes, intends to speak about this particular provision in the Bill, so I think it would be appropriate for me to leave any further comment to him. However, I am aware that the Government have already decided that some of the available funds will go the the Royal Irish Academy of Music.

As I have mentioned, the proposal to provide funds needed for repair and renovation work on the King's Inns building is not new. The work involved is considered to be essential for the preservation of the building. The King's Inns building was the last work in Dublin of James Gandon, the architect who designed the Custom House, the Four Courts, the Military Infirmary and the Westmoreland Street facade of the Bank of Ireland. The south wing of the building together with the join section under the cupola is owned by the State and is occupied by the Registry of Deeds. Altogether the State owns and occupies about two-thirds of the composite King's Inns building. It is worth noting that two-thirds of the actual building is owned by the State, not by the barristers of King's Inns.

There is unanimity, amongst those best qualified to judge, that the building which houses the King's Inns and Registry of Deeds is a minor classic and one of the finest buildings of its kind in Dublin. The part of it which is not owned by the State is listed as a building to be preserved, under the Dublin City Development Plan, 1980. It is a building of national significance and importance and must feature prominently in the architectural heritage of the nation. The part of the building which constitutes the King's Inns is used by the Society of King's Inns for the purpose of educating and training barristers. Perhaps I should clarify that the society's library in Henrietta Street is not part of the building and is not involved in the present proposals.

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 from injury. Full repairs to the external stonework of the buildings were estimated in 1981 to cost £1,310,000.

The Government have accepted that the Society of King's Inns is not in a position to provide the funds needed to carry out the essential and substantial repair work needed to preserve the building which it occupies. Ordinary maintenance is, of course, another matter and I am informed that the society spent about £150,000 on maintenance and repair work on the building between 1970 and 1980. Accordingly, the Government decided that it was necessary to provide, from public sources, the funds needed to preserve an artefact of exceptional historic and aesthetic interest which, on any standards, must rank in the forefront of the architectural heritage of the nation. Moreover, it is clear that further delays in carrying out the work that is needed would have the effect, at least, of making more expensive and extensive the work that would ultimately have to be done. It would place the future preservation of this particularly fine building at serious risk.

The work which will be financed under the Bill will be executed entirely under the control of the Office of Public Works. Accordingly, no money will be paid to the Society of King's Inns under the Bill. The work involved consists mainly of replacing, refacing or repointing the granite stonework of the buildings and repairing the boundary walls, gates and railings surrounding them. The remainder of the work costing about £100,000 consists of internal works in the building including rewiring and certain works in the basement necessary to prevent the development of fungal infestation. The internal work is regarded by the Office of Public Works as essential for the preservation of both the King's Inns and Registry of Deeds buildings.

As I indicated earlier, the King's Inns benefited from the funds of suitors before in 1959. Under the Funds of Suitors Act, 1959, a total of £70,000 — the present day value of which is £657,774 — was paid to the trustees of the society. £25,000 of this was for the creation of an investment fund, and the application of the income thereof for the maintenance of the King's Inns Library, which is not, as I already mentioned, involved in the current renovation project. The balance of £45,000 went to defray the cost of expenditure incurred in undertaking work of renovation and repair to the King's Inns building which is the subject of the present Bill. It has of course, proved inadequate to finance renovation work carried out since 1959 but was, in any event, never intended to cater for works of the kind now found to be necessary.

The provisions for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann is intended to help to defray part of the cost involved in the extension of their Cultúrlann at Monkstown, Co. Dublin, which was completed in 1983. The Minister for the Gaeltacht will be responsible for putting this provision of the Bill into effect. His Department already administer an annual grant payable to Comhaltas. I will be introducing an amendment to the Bill on Committee Stage proposing that the amount for Comhaltas should be increased from £250,000 to £300,000.

I will be proposing a further amendment to the Bill to enable a provision to be included for the payment of an amount of £100,000 from the available funds to the Minister for Labour to provide additional funding for the community, youth, recreational and employment programme, which is administered by the Department of Labour.

I estimate that the balance of the funds available after the above payments have been made will be about £1.19 million. Under the terms of the Bill as introduced this residue would be spent in building a new Children's Court for the District Court in Dublin and, to the extent that funds remained after that, on other projects in the courts area for which the State has responsibility, which it would fall to me to decide. However, under a further amendment of the Bill, I will be proposing that some of the balance of the funds that will remain after the specific commitments that are included in the Bill have been met, should be available for the provision of legal aid facilities which it will fall to me to decide, in addition to miscellaneous courts projects.

In the District Court the hearing of charges against children or young people must be held separately from the ordinary sittings of the court. The 1924 Courts of Justice Act, section 80, provided that a Justice of the District Court should sit once a week, if requisite, in a Special Court in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford to be called "The Children's Court".

Up to the late forties the Dublin Metropolitan Children's Court sat in Court No. 2, Morgan Place, Four Courts, and was then physically separated from the other courts by being housed in Dublin Castle where it remained until November 1981 when it was forced to evacuate the premises at very short notice because they were considered to be in a dangerous condition.

The Dublin Castle accommodation was long regarded as deficient and unsatisfactory and more than ten years ago plans were prepared for improving the accommodation by internal rearrangement and the construction of an annex to the back of the building. These plans had to be abandoned, however, following a detailed survey which disclosed that the structure, which is 200 years old, would not stand the proposed alterations.

Following the evacuation from its former premises in Dublin Castle in 1981, the Dublin Children's Court has been located, temporarily, in the District Court, Morgan Place, which is quite unsuitable for the purpose. It does not provide adequate waiting facilities and is causing serious disruption for other courts in the location. It has meant the loss of one courtroom and a judge's room to the District Court, which has adversely affected the disposal of other court business. In fact, the President of the District Court has repeatedly requested the return of the courtroom involved to its normal use to enable him to deal with the ever-lengthening lists that have resulted from the protracted loss of the courtroom.

Although the provision of new permanent accommodation for the Children's Court has been an urgent priority for some time efforts by the OPW to find suitable accommodation on the market have failed and subsequent plans for the construction of a purpose-built Children's Court at a site owned by the State at Smithfield, Dublin, have had to be shelved due to lack of funds.

In these circumstances I am particularly pleased to be able to have the funds needed to carry out this important development made available under the provisions of this Bill. The plans for the new Children's Court are being drawn up at present in the light of the provision in this Bill. Generally they will include the provision of generous waiting and consultation facilities with conference and duty rooms for probation and welfare officers, so that all who are concerned with the welfare of children who appear before the courts will be adequately facilitated. The plans will include separate waiting areas for gardaí, witnesses and for members of the public. There will be two courtrooms and judges rooms. In addition to two consultation and two welfare officers rooms, a retiring room for solicitors will be provided.

As to the question of what other courts projects might be financed from the remaining funds, I think that until such time as the priority item, that is the building of a new Children's Court, has been completed, and the final cost of that project is known, it would be unrealistic to speculate on what other projects might be included. Perhaps I should mention that under the law at present local authorities, and not the State, have responsibility for providing and maintaining court accommodation outside Dublin. It follows that courts projects outside Dublin could not be financed under the provisions in this Bill, under present arrangements.

Perhaps I should emphasise one feature of this Bill which differs from previous Funds of Suitors legislation. The present Bill will authorise the disposal of all but a nominal amount of 1 per cent of the capital assets in the dormant accounts of the funds of suitors — and not merely the cash in these funds, to which previous withdrawals were confined. In practical terms this may involve retaining only about £28,000 of the value of the investments contained in these accounts. This residue is necessary to enable any successful future claim on the dormant funds to be valued accurately. However, the amount does not affect the ability of the accountant of the High Court to meet any such future claim because of the inclusion in the Bill of the usual indemnity provision in favour of suitors. Incidentally the incidence of such claims is rare. I understand that claims totalling about £1,400 were paid out of dormant funds in the last decade.

The consent of the Chief Justice has been obtained to the withdrawal of the moneys which the Government propose to use for the purposes indicated in this Bill, as this involves the withdrawal of moneys which come, at present, within the sole jurisdiction of the courts.

Section 2 of the Bill is the provision which enables the accountant of the High Court to realise the existing investments in the dormant accounts subject to the retention of stock to the value of 1 per cent of these investments for the purpose that I have mentioned already.

Section 3 is the provision which enables cash in the funds of suitors to be devoted to the various purposes that I have mentioned. As in the case of previous withdrawals from the funds of suitors, section 5 of the Bill affords a complete indemnity to suitors against any loss they might otherwise sustain as a result of the enactment of the proposed legislation.

Section 4 of the Bill is a provision to extend, temporarily, the powers of the Commissioners of Public Works to carry out work on the King's Inns, which is not a public building. Under existing legislation the Commissioners of Public Works are empowered to undertake work only in relation to public buildings and the extended powers which the Bill confers relate exclusively to work on the King's Inns and will expire, at the latest, after five years. The provision also restricts the amount which the commissioners may expend on this work to the amount of £600,000 provided under section 3 of this Bill.

The release of funds from the courts accounts is not equivalent to authorising the spending of the taxpayers' money, but it seems to me to call for the same level of responsibility and I am satisfied that each one of the proposals to which this money will be devoted is most deserving of immediate assistance and that it is necessary that the dormant funds of suitors should be used in the ways proposed in this Bill. Were it not for the availability of these funds at the present time I have little doubt that demands on the Exchequer for finance to meet the cost of the various proposals that will be financed through the withdrawal of these funds would be even greater.

I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading.

Dr. Woods

I should like at the outset to thank the Minister for giving us such a detailed explanation of the Funds of Suitors Bill. Most people find it difficult to understand funds of suitors. The Minister has outlined very clearly where they come from and how they come to be available at this time. The principal element we have to recognise is that these are windfall moneys which are available to the State and to the Oireachtas to be allocated in the Bill before us for purposes which would not otherwise be covered. That is what one would expect to be done with funds which are a windfall. Consequently we support and welcome many of the things the Minister has said and the way in which he has outlined them. We are very concerned that these moneys should be used specifically for purposes which should not normally be covered by the State or by somebody else.

I should like to raise a number of questions about the funds which, as far as I can see, the Minister has not covered. The Bill provides only for the disposal of funds of suitors lying dormant in the office of the accountant of the courts of justice. That means funds lying dormant in the High Court. It does not refer to funds lying dormant in the office of the county registrar, the Circuit Court, the District Court, or in the office of the clerk of the District Court. I should like the Minister to clear up the point whether those funds are actually included in the funds mentioned as lying dormant in the office of the accountant.

The Minister proposes to use the windfall funds as he has taken great pains to show us, for such purposes as they were used in the past, for instance, the completion of the Cork Opera House and the rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre. These would appear to be suitable uses for windfall funds which are available in this way. We would expect to look at problems which we have along those lines and which we would not be able to deal with otherwise.

The Minister proposes to allocate £600,000 to culture and the arts within the meaning of the 1951 Act as the Taoiseach may determine. This is very welcome. Presumably these allocations will be in line with the intentions of the House in the making available of extra funds which would not otherwise be available. We do not want to see these funds used to replace money which should be made available in the normal way to particular groups involved in culture and the arts.

The Minister said he wishes to allocate £250,000 to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and in an amendment which he is putting before the House later he plans to increase this figure to £300,000. We welcome the application of funds to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann as a suitable application for these projects for a group who are in difficulties at the moment and who need the funds. Comhaltas Ceoltóirí have considerable financial problems at present, due mainly to the fact that they were promised a grant in 1982 but that was not forthcoming. They went ahead with the work and now they have a very substantial deficit which is worsening their position daily. The non-payment of a funds of suitors grant which was promised in 1982 and, secondly, a reduction in the annual organisation grant from Roinn na Gaeltachta which was reduced in 1982 from £125,000 to £110,000 and which has been kept at that level, have added to their difficulties.

Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann have undertaken very extensive work programmes. Members of the House will recognise that they are making a considerable contribution to cultural development, particularly in the area of folk music and Irish music and culture generally. They have 400 branches throughout the country, they organise many tours and Fleánna Ceoil and their functions are attended by approximately 750,000 people annually. This gives an indication of their influence and effect on the country as a whole and their importance.

Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann have also played a part in promoting reconciliation in the North of Ireland which they outlined clearly in their submission to the New Ireland Forum. They have 60 branches in the North of Ireland comprising members from both communities. They are a group who have an influence and an effect in almost every parish throughout the country and whose work is worthy of support. Currently they have considerable difficulties. Their debts are in the region of £750,000 and because of high interest charges these debts are growing rapidly.

We support the Minister's approach in making further funds available in this instance and in increasing the amount from £250,000 to £300,000. However, our position is that a further £250,000 should be applied to Comhaltas, bringing the amount to £500,000 and I have to put down an amendment to that effect. This was our view, irrespective of the amendment which the Minister circulated late last evening. I am not criticising the Minister for circulating it late in the evening: we know the circumstances of the Dáil at present and the amount of business that is underway.

Our view is that a figure of £500,000 is necessary to overcome the difficulties Comhaltas Ceoltóirí face at present. We consider these are suitable windfall funds and this is a most suitable purpose to which to apply the funds. I am putting down such an amendment on behalf of Fianna Fáil and we will ask the Minister to consider increasing the figure. We consider he is going in the right direction in increasing the amount from £250,000 to £300,000 but that will not meet the problem and they will be left with a debt of £450,000. Therefore, the problem will remain with them in view of the high interest charges. Comhaltas are making strenuous efforts to raise funds to put themselves back on a strong financial basis. They are taking measures to tighten up their management and their administration. They undertook a major investment in the Comhaltas headquarters at Monkstown and in the development of the cultural institute at Monkstown. Indeed, the closure of that institute is imminent unless the problem is solved quickly. This group are contributing in a major way to the cultural life of the country and they fully deserve our support. In our view they need at least £500,000 from these funds and since they are available as windfall funds we believe they should be given this help.

The other works the Minister mentions include the King's Inns where not more than £600,000 may be applied in or towards defrayal of the cost of carrying out the works specified in section 4. The work is being carried out by the Office of Public Works and money is being applied to them for that purpose. Therefore, this is work that the State should normally undertake in its programme through the Office of Public Works and, consequently, the amount of money applied for that purpose in this Bill would seem to be excessive.

In finding additional moneys for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann we would have no objection to the Minister deducting these from the £600,000 that may be applied towards the cost of carrying out the works at King's Inns. There are many questions about this that must be put.

The Minister said the State has control over 60 per cent or two-thirds of the buildings in the King's Inns and I should like him to clarify that. I take it he means that the King's Inns hold the fee simple and make it available to the State at a certain rent? Alternatively, have they been transferred entirely to the State?

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Registry of Deeds is owned by the State.

Dr. Woods

That is the point.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): That is two-thirds of the total.

Mr. Taylor

The King's Inns belong to the King's Inns.

Dr. Woods

We are aware that the Registry of Deeds is there. It is very difficult to get information about the activities of the King's Inns, as the Minister may appreciate. If one goes to the Incorporated Law Society one can get their published annual accounts and see what is going on there in relation to their activities and accounts. However, there are not similar accounts in relation to the King's Inns and it is a matter of some public concern that the funds are being allocated to a body who have no direct public accountability.

Mr. Taylor

It was a Fianna Fáil administration who gave them that.

Dr. Woods

The Minister has made that case and if the Deputy had listened to him he would realise that. Deputy Taylor should realise that we are now speaking in June 1984. Perhaps if he could take the matter from there and look forward, he and his party might get better results in the future.

Mr. Taylor

We have to look backwards as well.

Dr. Woods

Let us not spend too much time looking backwards. There are plenty of people doing that. In any event, there is concern about the way that moneys of this order will be applied. The Minister has covered part of that in pointing out that the King's Inns are under the control of the State and he also said that absolute ownership is under the State. That will certainly clarify the position.

The balance of the King's Inns is owned by King's Inns themselves and these are a private group who are in possession of an historic building which is of immense value to the city of Dublin and which should be maintained and repaired. The Minister has outlined the reasons for that so I need not go into them again and I agree with him in that respect. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that the King's Inns will benefit as a result and in doing so, under the measures which have been outlined by the Minister, will provide no element of public accountability or indeed no account of any sort in relation to the running and management of that building. The Minister said the King's Inns cannot afford to pay for this repair work themselves. We are all involved in running community centres now and the community are expected to make a contribution towards such centres. Could the King's Inns not make a contribution? When religious orders are setting up schools they are expected to make a contribution because it will be their property eventually. I know they only make a contribution of about 10 per cent but nevertheless it is a help. It is hard to believe that the King's Inns cannot make any contribution and I should like the Minister to consider this.

The King's Inns have made their facilities available to the public. Their park is available and the rooms within the King's Inns are made available to groups and charitable organisations for various uses. The park and grounds are opened to the public during daylight hours and residents in the area have no other green space available to them and make good use of the facility. A room has been made available in the building to the State for use as a court. The High Court have sat there for about 100 days over the past 12 months. The King's Inns also provides for about 500 students on a four year course.

The Minister has pointed out that the Kings's Inns have, in recent years, contributed £150,000 to the renovation of the buildings but that at present because of atmospheric pollution, increased porosity of the granite, moisture being absorbed into the joints and so on, major works need to be done. The money for these works will be paid to the Office of Public Works who would do the necessary repairs.

I support the Minister in his plan to maintain this historic building but, as I said, some contribution should be made by the King's Inns in relation to the portion which is their private property. I am not going to go into the antiquity of the Inns or the elite nature of this profession. People are surprised at the fact that you can still have requirements in a course to take so many dinners in a year and so on. From what the Minister said, it is quite clear that none of this money is going to wine cellars or luxuries in the King's Inns and, therefore, the works which are specified appeared to be very necessary and worthwhile. At this stage, the Minister has an opportunity to try to bring some element of accountability and perhaps some contribution into the King's Inns and perhaps to require that accounts should be produced at intervals because it is adding to the capital value of the society.

For what other purposes can the moneys be allocated? The Minister has also proposed that funds would be allocated to the Children's Court to improve the services there and he has gone into that in some detail. That would be very welcome and we would naturally support it. We look forward to these facilities being provided. He has also said that in one of his amendments he intends to provide funds for legal aid facilities. He will deal with this later and will have the authority under the Bill to make such provisions.

Another area which the Minister might consider is the very urgent need for a centre for the rehabilitation of young drug addicts. This impinges on the court area and on the work of the Department of Justice because so many of these drug addicts end up in jail because of drug-related crime. They are not being adequately catered for under the system at present because we do not have the facilities to deal with them. It is a very urgent need at present, especially for young people who are very badly catered for. It is now an emergency and should not be left until funds are available from the Minister for Finance. I am sure the Minister is aware of the needs in this area and that the impact of work done in the rehabilitation of young offenders who have been involved in drug-related crime would pay very substantial dividends. It is clear from work done elsewhere that it is not possible to put all these drug-related offenders back on the road to recovery or to rehabilitate them, but the proportion who can be rehabilitated is substantial. Consequently they are taken out of the area of crime and given an opportunity to lead useful lives. I would ask the Minister to consider a centre for the rehabilitation of young drug addicts from the funds available here. If the other funds to which I have referred are not included in the total which has been given, perhaps this could be looked at. These are the funds lying dormant in the High Court. It does not refer to the funds lying dormant in the Office of the County Registrar in the Circuit Court or in the District Court. If there are further funds lying dormant there, they should be used for some of these excellent purposes.

Since introducing the Bill the Minister has obviously considered some relevant improvements and has tabled some amendments. Through his suggestions he has already improved the allocation of these funds in a way which should have the support of this House. We are asking him to go further in relation to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and to bear in mind the need for a rehabilitation centre for young offenders.

We welcome these windfall moneys and the opportunity to allocate the funds to purposes which would not otherwise be covered. We hope the Minister will keep this in the forefront of his mind and ensure that the Minister for Finance does not take the opportunity to switch from other allocations which he would normally make. This can happen all too often. This is an unusual opportunity and the funds should be used for special high priority projects, particularly in the area of the culture and the arts and the work done by Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann.

Mr. Taylor

I am in agreement with the broad principle under which the dormant funds of suitors lying in the courts should be brought back to life and put to good public use. This is a principle which all of us would support. I would mention as a brief aside that one would wonder how much there is by way of dormant funds lying in the banks. It must amount to many millions. Perhaps on some occasion this Minister or the Minister for Finance would have a look at that aspect and see whether there is any method by which dormant funds in the banks might be put to public use.

Some of the items thrown up in this Bill give rise to very serious concern. The Minister indicated that the proposed grant of £600,000 to the King's Inns is being included in the Bill to honour commitments given by previous administrations. We need to know a lot more about that. What administrations? What is meant by "administration"? Does it mean a vote in this House? Does it mean a committee? Does it mean the Cabinet? Does it mean the Government? What Government? Who was the Taoiseach? Who were the Ministers? I had thought that we in this House, the Members of Dáil Éireann, were the ones who, under the Constitution, gave commitments to dispense with public moneys, not administrations. Are we years later bound by a commitment given by an administration, whatever that is? Is it suggested that we in Dáil Éireann are obligated to honour a commitment other than a commitment in a Bill enacted by the Oireachtas?

I have grave reservations about a grant of £600,000 from these moneys to the King's Inns. The King's Inns are the professional controlling body of the barristers' profession. They have as their headquarters the King's Inns building in Henrietta Street which adjoins the Registry of Deeds building, a Government property. The latter building is in need of repair and nobody could call into question the need to spend money on it since it is a public building. The King's Inns building is very fine, a minor classic. I was in it on one occasion and it is magnificent. The crucial point is that it is a private building belonging to a private professional body. There are many such bodies. Solicitors, architects, doctors and engineers have them and all of them have their buildings, some of which may be minor classics too. Does it mean that one of these bodies can come to the Government in times of economic stringency seeking to obtain a massive amount of money? It raises very serious questions and I am very unhappy about it.

This building is not open to the public, minor classic though it be. The public cannot view the magnificant vaulted ceilings, cornice work, chandeliers and so on. Deputy Woods made what I can only regard as a pretty poor apologia along these lines. He referred to the fact that the public have the benefit of the park but the park is referable as much to the Registry of Deeds as to the King's Inns. He made the point that it was useful as a right of way to go through from Broad-stone to Henrietta Street but £600,000 is a high price to pay for a pedestrian access which is there as much by courtesy of the Registry of Deeds as the King's Inns.

The King's Inns have already obtained substantial amounts of public moneys from these funds. The sum of £323,000 was given in the Funds of Suitors Act, 1959, towards the rebuilding of the Abbey, a magnificent project which I would wholeheartedly support, and also to finance the repair and renovation of the King's Inns. Again the same body are coming along for a substantial allocation of public funds. I do not accept the description "windfall moneys". These are public moneys which the Government are taking under their control to distribute. They are being distributed. They are taking these moneys — admittedly not raised by taxation—under their control to distribute. In my view that makes them public moneys and we should call a spade a spade on this issue.

In 1959 they received a substantial sum. What is so special about the King's Inns? What is so special about their premises that they, and they alone, must be so honoured with the dispensation of £600,000 of public money? There is a community centre in my constituency in Greenhills which is not used for the lack of perhaps £20,000 or £30,000 which is urgently needed by a substantial densely populated area there. Would they be considered for something out of a Funds of Suitors Bill? In common with other organisations up and down the country, of which there must be many hundreds, I should imagine they would get fairly short shrift if they attempted to do so. Therefore, what is special about the King's Inns is something that escapes me. There are very many public projects which are open to members of the public crying out for funds. For example, I have seen reports that the National Museum is in a critical condition for want of funds, that many of their artifacts and exhibits are being destroyed because they cannot be provided with storage and cover, let alone put on public view. The National Museum at least is a public institution. It is open to members of the public and adults and children can go there and learn something whereas the King's Inns is not open to the public view. I would contend that it behoves wealthy professional bodies, such as the Society of King's Inns, solicitors and anybody else, to so arrange their financial affairs that their headquarters and institutions are provided for. The subscriptions which are levied on members of professional bodies over the years — and goodness knows the Society of King's Inns has been there a very long time; they are one of the oldest professional bodies in the country—should be organised at a rate which will maintain their premises at the level they require. That is a matter for them. The State cannot undertake responsibility for, and does not undertake responsibility for, the maintenance and construction works of every minor classic up and down the country, or every major classic building either. I would like to see the King's Inns building preserved—it is a James Gandon Building—that is fine but that must be done by the private institution that owns it and not from public funds.

Incidentally, I see that in 1959 they also received a substantial sum of money for the maintenance of the society's library. I am sure it is a very fine library. But I remember seeing a report some while back saying that they had sold off a substantial proportion of the books out of their library, that they had raised quite a substantial sum of money as a result of having sold some of the valuable assets in the form of old and antiquarian books they had there.

The Minister indicates that the Society of King's Inns is not in a position to provide the funds. That is unfortunate but it is nobody's fault but their own and the fact that they do not have the funds to maintain their headquarters is regrettable. I am sure they are not alone in that. There are many worthy community organisations that likewise find themselves short of funds in these difficult times. In the public eye, at a time of high unemployment, at a time of real hardship being exercised by so many of our people, for it to be seen that £600,000 of public money is distributed in this way must be a source of grave and serious concern to say the least.

I regard as firstclass the money being provided for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann—a very worthwhile organisation. The necessity for funds for the new Children's Court could not be faulted either. The provision for legal aid is to be very much welcomed and I do so very strongly indeed.

The provision of £600,000 for the arts is something I welcome also but I do have some concern about the manner in which it is to be dispensed. I see from the Bill that a sum of £600,000 for the arts is to be given into the sole discretion of the Taoiseach. I must admit that that raises some questions in my mind. I wonder is that the appropriate way to deal with the dispensation of £600,000 for the arts? I have no doubt whatever that the Taoiseach has a very fine appreciation of the broad spectrum of the arts but to give the dispensation of a very substantial sum of money like that into the hands of any one person, be it the Taoiseach or someone else, is something that should not be done. There is an Arts Council who are well disposed and well qualified to do that. While I support the provision of the money for the arts—at least it does have a public thrust—some further consideration ought be given to the manner of dispensation of that money. It would not be helpful at all if the impression were to be given that this was some kind of slush fund, or something of that nature, given into the personal disposition of the Taoiseach. Rather it should be dispensed, perhaps on consideration by the Arts Council, or perhaps some other like committee along with them who could examine necessary objects, where improvements in the arts were necessary, and have it dispensed in that way. Subject to those qualifications I support the Bill.

Mr. Kitt

I want to thank the Minister for his clarification of the purpose of this Bill and its provisions, and of the work that is to be done on the renovation of King's Inns. I particularly welcome the extra moneys being provided for the community, youth, recreational and employment programme administered by the Department of Labour. I fully support the provision of £100,000 there. I support also the establishment of permanent accommodation for the Children's Court. With regard to other court projects I would hope we would hear from the Minister what is the present position outside the Dublin area. As he correctly pointed out in his introductory remarks, outside the Dublin area local authorities have responsibility for providing and maintaining courts. Bearing in mind the financial problems at present being encountered by local authorities it appears that they will be restricted in endeavouring to provide such court facilities.

Like other speakers I, too, would question why such a large amount of money is being made available to the Society of King's Inns. It has been pointed out already that a total of £323,000 was given to them in 1959 with a further provision of £600,000 under section 3 of this Bill. The Minister has detailed some of the work to be done there. I should like to ask the Minister some questions about the replacement of the electric wiring and the renovation of the basement. Perhaps the Minister would tell us if there will be any practical use made of the basement of that building. It is not very practical for the Minister to say that money is being spent to prevent fungal infestation if there is not going to be any practical use made of the basement. Surely that part of the building could be used for meetings. If it is not to be used, would it not be better to seal it off altogether rather than expending that amount of money thereon?

Much of the Minister's introductory remarks were devoted to the King's Inns. I would have preferred that he would have talked more about culture and the arts. I had been hoping that most of the moneys to be made available under the provisions of this Bill would have been allocated towards cultural and arts projects. In the past money has been provided for the Cork Opera House and the Abbey Theatre. It is intended under this Bill to allocate funds to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and in my contribution I shall deal with the grant to that body. A sum of £250,000 is not sufficient for that body and the Minister's proposal to increase the amount by £50,000 will not help a great deal. In fact, even with that grant CCE will be in serious financial difficulties. The Minister has stated that the money is to defray the expenses involved in building An Cultúrlann. CCE make the point that had they got the grants promised to them in the past, particularly the capital grant promised in 1981, they would not have problems in An Cultúrlann. The organisation is concerned that the level of grant has not been maintained in recent years.

This is not the first time that the King's Inns has got money from the Government. We have suggested that the Government pay £500,000 to CCE. That amount would put the organisation back on a more sound financial footing. I note that the grant from the Arts Council to Comhaltas has remained static for the last three years at £59,000. One must bear in mind that the total budget of the Arts Council is £5½ million but the contribution to Comhaltas is very small, although there is majority support for our native culture and music. In fact, less than 2 per cent of the budget of the Arts Council is allocated to native culture and music. Comparisons have been made by CCE to the amount allocated to other art forms such as ballet and opera. I understand that ballet received £400,000 while opera received £350,000 per annum. Comhaltas are only seeking parity with other art forms which obtain between 8 per cent and 10 per cent of the budget of the Arts Council. Those promoting Irish music and culture should receive an allocation similar to other art forms.

Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann has been in existence for 33 years and has branches in the 32 counties. Groups have been organised in Great Britian, the USA, Canada, France, Sweden, Luxembourg and Australia. One of the features of the organisation is that Irish people living in those countries have managed to keep Irish music popular among emigrants. In all there are 400 branches promoting Irish music, song and dance. Functions organised by Comhaltas such as Céilíthe and seisiúin are attended by 750,000 people annually. We must also take into account the part the organisation plays in the tourist industry. Comhaltas is particularly active during the tourist season. At a time when we are endeavouring to attract more visitors to Ireland we should be helping groups such as Comhaltas. I accept that one of the difficulties in regard to that industry concerns our high VAT rates but we are not doing much to help an organisation such as Comhaltas that has made great strides in entertaining tourists.

The Minister has helped in some way by increasing the allocation to Comhaltas by £50,000 but bearing in mind that the grant from the Arts Council has remained static for many years and that the grant from Roinn na Gaeltachta to Comhaltas has been reduced since 1982 the Government should do everything possible to increase the allocation. In fact, Comhaltas deserves the highest allocation under the Bill. I suggest that the Minister reduce the allocation to the King's Inns by £250,000 and pass that on to Comhaltas.

It is worth noting that Comhaltas made a submission to the New Ireland Forum pointing out how they had managed to bring people of different creeds and political views together. They have promoted co-operation and harmony throughout the island. Having proceeded with the building of An Cultúrlann they were disappointed that State funding to them decreased. It is estimated that State funding to the organisation decreased by 50 per cent in real terms in recent years. As a member of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann I support the call for extra money for that organisation especially when there is majority support for Irish culture, music, song and dance. That organisation should be given priority.

I note that money will be provided under the Bill for the Children's Court in Dublin and the King's Inns which is also located in Dublin but our organisation covers the entire island. Irish emigrants are concerned about the drop in State funding to the organisation. Many Irish people in America have expressed the view to me in the course of letters that the entire organisation is in danger because of lack of funds, particularly An Cultúrlann which is the focal point for Comhaltas. It would be disastrous if An Cultúrlann was forced to close down due to a lack of funds. I hope to talk on this again on Committee Stage, and I hope the Minister will accept, as we propose, that £500,000 be given to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. I thank him again for his clarification of matters when introducing the Bill.

Mr. Shatter

I welcome the fact that these funds that have been held effectively in the courts for so long are now being made available for public purposes. I welcome also the Minister's initiative in not merely, in a sense, using some of the interest but using some of the capital at a time when funds are scarce. I would like to concentrate my remarks on two or three aspects of the Minister's speech, but initially I will deal with what I would describe as the Dutch auction being run by the party opposite. Every Member of this House recognises the worthiness of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and their great contribution to national life and the way the organisation has knitted together Irish communities outside this country. In recognition of the worthiness of this organisation their needs have been met fully by this Government in a way that the Opposition party never intended to meet them. The original proposal in this Bill as published was to provide £250,000 for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. The Minister has indicated in this House this morning that he is increasing it to £300,000. That is to be welcomed, but what is the attitude of the Opposition? It is not to say, "It is a good idea to give the extra £50,000". They do not want to give them £300,000; they want to give them £500,000. Why not say £600,000, £700,000 or £800,000? It is curious that Deputy Woods and his colleagues adopt this approach particularly in the light of the fact that their own Government in 1982, when seeking to decide what funds should be made available to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann out of the funds of suitors, proposed to give them £200,000. When did Deputy Woods suddenly have this great thought? Was he lying in the bath one night contemplating his big toe when suddenly the thought came to him, "We should not give Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann £200,000, we should give them £500,000"? How did he light on the figure of £500,000? Was there some magical reason for holding on to that figure? Why was it not £600,000 or £400,000?

Dr. Woods

The works were done in 1983.

Mr. Shatter

Why were his Government in 1982 proposing to give Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann £200,000, £100,000 less than this Government are making available to them? Let us not beat about the bush on this question. This is the sort of spurious political debate that goes on regularly in this House and demeans the standing of politicians. Members of this House who when in Government knew that their own party were going to do something, come into this House 12 or 16 months later and propose something at total variance with the proposals of their own party when in Government. That is why comments made by Members of this House on important areas of our national life lack credibility with members of the public. Why could Deputy Woods not have the generosity to come into this House on this Bill and congratulate the Minister on making available to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann £100,000 more by way of funds than his own party were prepared to make available to them?

Dr. Woods

The Deputy was not here when we did it. I did it at the outset.

Mr. Shatter

Obviously I am touching a raw nerve.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

There should be no interruptions.

Mr. Shatter

The Deputy in the context of the Minister's speech partially welcomed this allocation, then went on to argue that really it was not enough, it should be £500,000. He can go out of this House and tell Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann that if his party had been in Government they would have given them an extra £100,000. That is not true. The Deputy knows that that is not true and he should not seek to mislead the electorate by suggesting——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter should withdraw the remark that the Deputy knows that that is not true.

Mr. Shatter

Perhaps the Deputy is unaware of what his party would have done if they were in Government, but he is certainly aware that approximately 18 months ago his own party were proposing to make available £100,000 less to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann than are the present Government. Why must the Deputy engage in political posturing in this House by implying that larger funds would be made available to them by the Fianna Fáil Party today if they were in Government? If he thinks he can deceive or fool the general public or the many members of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann in this way he is mistaken. I congratulate the Minister on making this allocation of £300,000 available to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. It is very worthy. I congratulate him on not simply producing a Bill duplicating what his predecessor was going to do and for approaching this legislation with a degree of innovation.

I wish to deal with two aspects of the Bill in a little more detail than Members on any side of the House have yet dealt with them. First, I want to deal with that aspect of the Minister's proposal in which he states that he is going to use some of the funds made available for the purpose of legal aid. This was not proposed to be done in the original Bill published or this Bill, and I welcome the fact that the Minister intends to provide additional funds pursuant to this Bill for the legal aid system. It should be recognised that the Minister in doing so has taken into account submissions and representations made to him by members of both the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party that he should make such funds available. That is an indication of the openness of this Minister and his willingness to listen to submissions and representations from Deputies in this House, and when legislation is produced for Second Stage he is open to introducing aspects or making amendments in it to meet needs or legal requirements after he has examined them. He is willing to meet reasonable proposals put to him. It is fair to say that a number of Deputies on the Government side, including myself, requested that the Minister look at the possibility of providing funds for legal aid out of the Funds of Suitors Bill and I welcome the fact that he has been able to do so.

In this context I hope the Minister will be able to clarify a number of matters, although he may not be able to do so at this stage. It is not clear from the Bill what the exact allocation of funds will be for legal aid and the Minister may wish to give that some consideration. I do not wish to tie him down on that but I would like a general indication of the amount of money being made available for the purpose of legal aid. I welcome the provision of these moneys because the existing civil legal aid system — I presume that the moneys will be granted to the civil legal aid system at least, not the criminal legal aid system — as it is operating by the provision of State law centres is under severe pressure, unable to cope with the amount of work that the lawyers in those centres are asked to cope with, and has always been inadequate to meet the needs that exist for legal aid. It should be recognised now that first, too few solicitors are employed in the individual law centres as they exist under the State system of legal aid; secondly, there are not sufficient numbers of such law centres. The law centres as they operate at present are vastly over-worked.

Frequently there is the situation, particularly in Dublin where there are three law centres, that the personnel are overworked to such an extent that they refuse to take any new legal work for a period. There have been occasions when the law centres at Gardiner Street, at Aston Quay and at Ormond Quay were closed in relation to taking on new clients. The situation now is that anyone seeking legal assistance through the civil legal aid system will have to wait at least a month before gaining access to a lawyer. My information is that at the moment one of the law centres is not taking on new clients. This problem has existed during the period of office of the last three successive Governments. The time has come for us to review the workings of the law centres and to re-examine the manner in which we are dealing with this area. One hopes that some of the moneys being made available by the Minister for legal aid will be made available to the State civil legal aid centres to ensure that at least they can provide a proper, adequate and speedy service.

The difficulty is that there have been in existence law centres established by way of, in a sense, ministerial diktat or under the aegis of the Department of Justice without any legislation having been introduced here such as that suggested by the Pringle Committee in terms of the provision of a comprehensive legal aid system. We recognise that at a time of economic difficulty when we are trying to cut back on financial expenditure and when the taxpayers are overtaxed we may not be in a position to provide the type of comprehensive civil legal aid system envisaged by the Pringle Committee but in the context of dealing with the whole area of legal aid, I would ask the Minister to consider the possibility of introducing statutory provision to deal with this whole question, to provide for a situation in which the present type of legal aid system could operate and in which there would be room for expansion by way of ministerial regulation as finances became available. What we have now is a hotchpotch system of legal aid that is unco-ordinated as between civil legal aid and the criminal legal aid areas and which is not properly accountable to this House.

In regard to the Minister's suggestion of allocating funds to the legal aid system, this is an area in which I have a great interest. I am speaking here as one who was involved in the free legal advice centres from 1970, from shortly after they started, and as one who was both a former director of a free legal advice centre and a chairman of the free legal advice centres. It was as a result of my work with the centres in the early seventies that I became involved to such an extent in the area of family law and in trying to solve many of the social problems being experienced then and which are still being experienced.

When I was director of the free legal advice centres in 1974, we opened the Coolock Community Law Centre which is the only community law centre in the State. It is a different type of centre from the Government-sponsored law centres which effectively seek to provide legal advice. The law centre at Coolock is one which in the context of community centres seeks to involve itself with the local community and to meet not merely individual legal needs but group needs and also to assist in advising people of their legal rights and in acting on behalf of representative groups within the community. This has been done in the context not merely of employing solicitors to give legal advice but also in the context of employing community officers. That type of centre represents a philosophy that is different from that of the Government-sponsored law centres. The Coolock Law Centre is about to celebrate a decade of existence so it is opportune that we pay tribute not only to those involved in the centre at the time it was opened but to all those who have been involved in it since. The centre operates on a shoestring budget and has provided a service of a kind that has made a tremendous contribution to the people of Coolock. It has provided us with a prototype of what the ideal law centre should be.

I am asking the Minister to consider seriously the proposal from the free legal advice centres to establish a community law centre at Tallaght. I am surprised that Deputy Taylor has not referred to this proposal. Tallaght has a growing community. It has a population equivalent to that of Cork or Limerick. The community at Tallaght are not served by a Government-sponsored law centre or by any type of comprehensive legal aid service. The population of Tallaght is in the region of 60,000 but is expected to be about 90,000 by the year 1990.

The free legal advice centres have submitted to the Minister comprehensive proposals for the establishment of a community law centre to service the new satellite town of Tallaght. I should like to endorse the sentiments expressed by the centres and to publicly support them. There is a need in Tallaght for a community law centre on the lines of the one that has worked so well at Coolock. I appreciate that the Minister may not be in a position to provide the total amount by way of funds that the free legal advice centres are seeking for this project but I recall that when the centre at Coolock was opened, the expenditure was far less, even on a comparative basis, than is being sought for a community law centre at Tallaght. Until such time as the State is in a position to provide a comprehensive legal advice service and civil legal aid by way of proper statutory provision, the Minister should encourage the establishment of other law centres and the type of diversity of approach that exists between the Government law centres and the community law centres. By observing the different types of operation involved, the effectiveness of the different types of centres could be monitored. The Government law centres do not fulfil the concept of community law centres as envisaged either in the Pringle Report or as operated in most countries in the world. The Coolock community law centre in particular fulfils that concept.

In the interest not only of the people of Tallaght but of the community generally, the free legal aid centres have proved by way of a clear record over a number of years that they are able to run community law centres. They operate efficiently on a shoestring budget and with less expenditure than it takes to run any Government law centre. They should be given an opportunity to open a further community law centre. The Minister should consider this project.

The contributors from Fianna Fáil had no comments to make on this area. No doubt someone will be thrown into the debate to reiterate what I have just said. It is an indication of their failure to acknowledge social needs. It shows their lack of social awareness and commitment. No member of the party has dealt with the legal aid problem or with the problem which many thousands of people face who require legal services for essential reasons. Very often they are battered or deserted wives seeking legal assistance to obtain the basic supports and protection of life. It is noteworthy that the Opposition have little or nothing to say in that area. The Minister's interest in this area and his willingness to make additional funds available, which he indicated this morning by saying he would introduce an amendment on Committee Stage to enable funds to be allocated for legal aid, is to be welcomed.

Deputies opposite welcomed the idea of providing funds for the children's court in Dublin. Apart from that there was no detailed examination of the proposal. I welcome the Minister's intention in principle. There has been a crying need for a new children's court in the Dublin area for decades. The Kennedy Report produced in 1970 spoke about the inadequacies of the children's court as it operated in Dublin Castle. In 1966 the Tuairim Report dealt with the inadequacies of the court structure in dealing with children. In 1980 the task force on child care made recommendations for the introduction of a children's court. Despite that there were no proposals to deal with this area until the Minister published the Bill before us. I welcome the Minister's recognition of the needs in this area and his commitment to provide facilities which have been required for many years in this area.

I do not wish to create any difficulties for the Minister when I say that I must make some comments in the welcome I give to this. I mean them as constructive comments and not destructive. While undoubtedly there is need for a new children's court in Dublin there is equally a need for a radical change in the administration of children's law and juvenile justice. That is not an issue on which we can go into detail on this Bill but the point is worth making that the long-awaited Children Bill which the Minister for Health keeps promising but has not produced is supposed to radically reform areas of law dealing with problems relating to the taking of children into care and the problems relating to children who commit criminal offences. The task force on child care contained a number of recommendations in this area, the vast majority of which I agree with. In the context of changes in the children's law to move away from the statutory provisions we have had since 1908, it is clear we will have to provide new structures, procedures and new types of courts to deal with children and the law.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will accept a passing reference to this but that is more than a passing reference.

Mr. Shatter

If the Chair will bear with me I will deal with the question of children's courts which was dealt with in this Bill. In the context of determining what type of children's court we want in Dublin or elsewhere one must have some philosophy about how to deal with this area. The type of legislation which will be introduced by the Minister for Health must indicate the kind of court structure we will have for children. The Minister's proposals seem to envisage establishing a children's court simply to operate on the basis of the legal system we have at present. I do not intend this as a criticism of the Minister but I am not sure if the manner of arranging the facilities in the children's court will be adequate. From my experience of these courts, particularly in the area of the family law court, the boffins in the Office of Public Works and the Department of Justice who designed them might think that their designs are practical but they are not. Very often they do not provide the type of facilities which the political heads in the Department of Justice would want to see provided. The report of the task force on child care stated:

We recommend that, apart from the courtroom, rooms should be made available for courtroom conferences involving parents and representatives of other interested agencies. There should be separate accommodation for consultations with the children, their parents, legal advisers, social workers and others. A witness room should also be provided, where witnesses may be accommodated, where it is deemed advisable to exclude them from the court otherwise than when they are giving evidence.... In many court houses at present, lack of accommodation renders it difficult to hear any case in camera. ...witnesses cannot be segregated or controlled and there are no facilities for consultations or waiting other than the halls and passages which are often crowded with gardaí, witnesses and parties to other cases. This lack of accommodation renders it quite impossibe to deal with cases in the manner proposed above. Ideally children's courts should be separated and distinct from the ordinary adult courts....

The Minister intends to provide for that. In the context of the accommodation in the courts, if one examines the statistics of the vast number of children who go through the Dublin Metropolitan Children's Court each year charged with criminal offences or in the context of care proceedings, they will show that there are in excess of 20,000 children's cases determined in that court each year. Any number from 20 to 40 children will be dealt with by the court in any one day. Sometimes that number of children can be dealt with on any one morning. By no stretch of the imagination can two consulting rooms meet the needs in this area as described by the task force. These will not provide facilities where parents and children can meet in private before being faced with a possible court hearing. The Office of Public Works do not have a good record in this area in that a special purpose-built court——

Mr. Mac Giolla

Is the Deputy in order? Time is moving on. He is not speaking to the Bill. There are many other speakers who wish to contribute.

Mr. Shatter

I will conclude in five minutes.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I dealt with the prospective design of a children's court and spoke about waiting rooms and so on. The Deputy is commenting further on that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am trying to be fair to everyone who is offering. The debate must conclude at 1.30 p.m.

Mr. Shatter

If I am permitted by the Chair and the Members of the House to conclude my contribution I shall do so in five minutes. OPW were involved in the provision of a new purpose-built family court in Dolphin House to deal with family cases as they arose before the Circuit Court. That building proved to be inadequate. As a result, after considerable expenditure on that building, family cases are now being dealt with within the Four Courts or in Chancery Place. The purpose-built court in Dolphin House is being used for cases other than family cases. I ask the Minister to have broader consultations about the facilities which should be made available in the children's court and not simply rely on the advice he receives from his officials or from the Office of Public Works. In particular, he should have regard to the experience of lawyers who are familiar with the children's courts and the family court, the manner in which they operate, and the problems created by the new facilities provided by the Office of Public Works in this area.

Although I welcome the Minister's commitment in this area, I have to make the point that the provision of a children's court in this way is an example of a piecemeal reform to tackle a problem which requires a far more comprehensive approach. In the minority report of the task force on child care, on the question of children's courts it was stated expressly that in principle the authorities would be in favour of having special family courts because of the specialised nature of the decisions which have to be taken in that area. They took the view that as many of the cases coming before family courts would involve children, in a system of family courts the children's court should form one division. As the deliberations of the marital committee are coming to an end a consensus is emerging on all sides that there is going to be a need to provide a family court structure to deal not merely with problems relating to children but with the whole area of marital breakdown.

If a new purpose-built court is to be built in the Dublin area, it appears that we are talking about spending something in the region of £800,000. If we are going to spend that type of money I would ask the Minister to spend it not simply to provide a new children's court, but to provide a family court in which family and marital difficulties that are litigated can be dealt with by way of the provision of a number of courtrooms in that building, and to have a courtroom to deal with children's cases. I ask the Minister not to spend this money on a children's court alone, but to extend his commitment to the provision of an all-purpose family court to deal with all aspects of children's law and family law in the Dublin area. Such a court provided in Dublin could be the prototype of the courts we should be able to provide at a later stage in a better economic climate, in other parts of the country to deal with family problems so that these cases will be no longer litigated in the back rooms of old broken down courthouses, buildings and dance halls all over the country.

I hope the Minister will accept my comments about the way in which he may spend the funds, particularly in the legal aid and courts areas, as constructive and that he does not take them as a personal criticism. I welcome the fact that this is the first Minister for Justice in a Fund of Suitors Bill who ever provided funds for legal aid or for children's courts. It is to the shame of all his predecessors, going back to 1966, that not one was willing to take up the issue of providing a proper court facility in the Dublin area for the thousands of children who find themselves heading into court, not simply on criminal charges but because proceedings are brought when they have to be taken into care either due to the failure of their parents or other difficulties. It is a disgrace that we have permitted the present facilities to continue to operate for the past decades. I welcome the Minister's commitment in this area.

Mr. Mac Giolla

I am surprised at the easy ride Deputy Woods has given to this Bill. I agree with his amendment as regards Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, but I thought he would have been stronger in his condemnation of the way in which this £2,790,000 is being used. One would expect that this money would not be used for ordinary Exchequer purposes to provide for items which would be included in the departmental Estimates, but would be used for specific projects of a cultural, artistic or community nature.

I endorse what Deputy Shatter had to say about free legal aid — I will speak about this later. Let us look at how this money is being spent. First, the Minister takes £1,190,000 for the Department of Justice to build a children's court. This should have been done years ago. The Department of Justice should have battled at the Cabinet Table to ensure that money was provided for this purpose. The Minister should not have to wait for the Funds of Suitors Bill to grab more than £1 million to build a children's court. This court should have been provided out of public funds because the taxpayers are providing plenty of money, wherever it is going. The Minister is also handing over £100,000 to the Department of Labour for a community youth recreation and employment programme. This sounds an excellent idea, but surely that is what the youth employment levy and the 1 per cent income levy are for. The Department of Labour should have provided this sum in their Estimate. There is no reason why £1,190,000 should be given to the Department of Justice, £100,000 to the Department of Labour and £600,000 to the Office of Public Works to do a job on a private building. This building is not under State ownership and specific legislation is required in this case because the Office of Public Works are only allowed to use their funds for public buildings. Now we are giving them specific permission to use these funds on a private building. This is an extraordinary use. This is a gross misuse of these funds. There are two sums which are not being used for the ordinary departmental Estimates system of funding: £600,000 to allow the Taoiseach to become a patron of the arts — an image which, unfortunately for him, Deputy Haughey has succeeded in getting over the last number of years, but now the Taoiseach with this £600,000 in his pocket will start to make a name for himself in that field — and £300,000 to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann.

The majority of Deputies would agree that most of these funds should go into the legal area where hundreds of thousands of people are unable to avail of legal aid because they cannot afford it and this means they lose their legal rights. Without the availability of aid to defend themselves, their rights and their families, they are deprived of justice. Some years ago the Government accepted this and decided to give State assistance to free legal aid centres. These centres are totally inadequate in the type of case they can take, and there is at least a three to six months waiting list because of the enormity of the task facing them. There is no funding for the free legal advice centres, which have been in existence for the last 15 years who thought they would be able to wind up when this Government took office, but have not been enabled to be wound up. They still have three community information centres in the city and five rights centres providing representations in regard to social welfare and appeals cases. They help people who lose social welfare benefits who are unable to get assistance. Therefore their service is invaluable.

As Deputy Shatter said, such organisations offer an excellent service to the people in their areas. FLAC have allowed the people representing the communities to take over services, and one area in particular which needs such a service is Tallaght, not forgetting Ballymun, of course. Tallaght is a fast growing town with a present population of 70,000 people. Enormous social problems exist there. Even if those people could afford to pay for legal services they would have to come to town to have them provided. A community centre there would do an enormous amount of good, with members of the community assisting each other.

That is the type of service these funds should be used for — community based legal aid projects. They are only asking for a guarantee to help them to start a community service in Tallaght and to be able to exist for three years. They are looking for £200,000. I ask the Minister to consider this as a deserving application, a deserving project to be aided by this Bill. He has ample room. There has been concentration on £600,000 for the Board of Works, £100,000 for the Department of Labour, as well as other sums, all going back into the big maw of the Exchequer. We will never know how much of the money will be swallowed up in administration.

Therefore, as I have said, there is ample scope to juggle around and the most deserving organisations are those trying to provide community legal help. The Minister has decided to give £1.19 million to the courts and then he will divide up the balance. I support the case of Deputy Woods for a grant of £500,000 for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann who are in dire financial straits and who need new headquarters. It would not be out of line with the programme of the Government already to give annual sums for cultural projects, like the theatre.

It is interesting to note that section 2 does not seem to regard Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann as being related to culture and the arts. It appears that the Taoiseach does not intend to regard the Comhaltas in such a light because it is suggested that £600,000 be given to culture and the arts and only £250,000 to the Comhaltas. Would the Minister now in the House consider giving them £600,000? They have a continuous annual need for funding to promote Irish culture and music.

I have referred to the organisations to which these funds should be given — voluntary community organisations concentrating on family law, like Cherish, Hope, The Rape Crisis Centre, etc. They all operate in family law and should be considered for help from this £2.79 million. They should be the first to be considered and Tallaght should be given priority. As well, organisations in other new towns such as Clondalkin and Ballymun should be given help.

Mr. Bell

I join with Deputy Taylor——

Mr. Tunney

On a point of order, I wish to inquire whether, in accordance with the traditions of the House, you give Government Members an opportunity to speak, then call on Deputy Mac Giolla and then come back to the largest party in the House——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair called on Deputy Mac Giolla, who has been here since 10.30 today, after a Government speaker. Deputy Mac Giolla is on the Opposition side of the House.

Mr. Tunney

On a point of order, should it not be——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have indicated that Deputy Mac Giolla had been sitting here since 10.30 this morning.

Mr. Tunney

Standing Orders do not make provision for the length of time a Deputy has been in the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The time factor is important here. You arrived here at 12.15.

Mr. Tunney

I repeat that Standing Orders do not refer to the length of time a Deputy has spent in the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I accept that.

Mr. Tunney

There is recognition that debate should move from one side to the other.

Mr. Bell

Which is happening.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bell will be the next speaker.

Mr. Tunney

I am reminding you that what you are doing does not comply with tradition in the House. When I occupied the position you are in and when you were seated elsewhere——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would you allow me to act as Leas-Cheann Comhairle?

Mr. Tunney

It is proper that each Member of the House would be allowed to remind the Chair of how he thinks Standing Orders should be applied, if he thinks they are being misapplied.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I deny that there has been misapplication. Deputy Bell.

Mr. Bell

I would have been finished by now. I wish to support the welcome for the Bill and to express the hope that the funds will be used for productive purposes. The discussion so far has indicated the enormous problems existing in Dublin as related by Deputies Mac Giolla, Taylor and Shatter. However, I would remind the House that no less problems exist in other towns throughout the country.

There are many problems in towns like Drogheda and Dundalk. The Drogheda Grammar School is a very historic building. It is a very controversial matter. It should be preserved but because it was in private ownership it is now actually falling apart and I was wondering whether, if Drogheda Corporation made an application to the Minister for even one-sixth of the £500,000, the sum estimated to be sufficient to preserve the particular building, what would his answer be. I am not prejudging the issue but I would hope the Minister would say he would give us the money but the answer could also be that, since the building is privately owned, one would not be justified in using public money to restore it.

There are other buildings, such as Garda stations, which are now falling apart and they would be the direct responsibility of the Minister. Surely some of these moneys we are discussing now could be used to restore them. There are also many historic buildings along the Border. These are also falling apart and I am wondering could this money be used for their restoration. I am wondering also about the restoration of the courthouse in Drogheda and in other areas too. These are historical and they are falling apart. At the moment they have to be propped up in one way or another to prevent them falling down on top of the people who have to attend these buildings.

The Minister said courthouses are the responsibility of the county councils. Steps should be taken to cope with the situation. Conditions are deplorable and why could this money not be used to provide proper facilities rather than spending what is effectively a sizeable sum of money on a private business? I was wondering would the Minister be prepared, for example, to make money available to trade unions which occupy buildings of an historical nature in various towns and cities. If a trade union wants to provide facilities for its members the only recourse is to increase the contributions of the members. The only business that is actually growing at the moment is the business of crime and the people who are not likely to go out of business are the people engaged in the legal profession. That applies particularly to the senior members of the legal profession. They have to be subsidised to the tune of £600,000.

Deputy Taylor voiced his objections earlier and I am sure the Minister is aware that solicitors, who might be described as the second or third division of the legal profession, when they wanted a building provided that building in the Bluecoat School. They had to reconstruct and renovate it at a cost of £1.5 million. There was no subsidy that I am aware of. They provided their own money. Each member of the organisation had to make an equal contribution. No levy was placed on those in the first division, on the people who earn the big lolly.

I welcome the proposals in general terms. It would not, I admit, be possible to satisfy everybody in the distribution of any moneys and we have to hear what the Minister of State will have to say in regard to the arts. We are very much in the dark as to what package he has. The Labour Party would welcome any contribution to the arts. They have been sadly neglected hitherto by successive Governments.

We welcome the proposal with regard to free legal aid. There are some who think free legal aid is confined to Dublin city. The fact is it is required countrywide. If there is to be a broadening of the free legal aid system I would ask the Minister to take into account the fact that we might want free legal aid in Limerick, for example.

It should not be confined to one particular area. That has been the tendency up to this. We do not regard this money as windfall money. It rightfully belongs to the State and it should be spent in the best interests of all the community. I strongly object to using this money to subsidise a privately owned building. We would have no objection to State expenditure on that part of the building owned by the State but if we accept the proposition adumbrated here we will be creating a very dangerous precedent. It is rather strange that on the two occasions when money of this kind was being distributed by the State a particular sector got a very sizeable slice of that money. The money comes under the responsibility of the High Court and I would be glad to be told that no pressure was brought to bear by the courts on the Minister's Department for any specific allocation of this money to the only sector of our community at the moment which is really in business. I welcome the Bill but strongly object to that section of it. I ask the Minister to very seriously reconsider amending it at the appropriate stage.

Mr. Tunney

Tá mise ag súil le fada leis an deis seo mo chuid tuairimí a nochtadh maidir le rudaí áirithe. Níl mé ag rá go mbaineann siad go díreach leis an mBille atá os ár gcomhair ach baineann siad le dearcadh atá sa tír seo. Tá mise chun iarracht a dhéanamh é a chur os comhair an Aire uasail atá anseo ionas go dtaispeánfaidh sé go n-aontaíonn sé liom agus gur ró-fhada ar fad atáimid ag glacadh má tá daoine áirithe in Éirinn atá sásta obair a dhéanamh in aisce go bhfuil saghas tuairim ann nach fiú an obair sin ar chor ar bith nó go bhfuil tuairim ann nach bhfuil rud ar bith eile le déanamh ag na daoine sin agus mar sin gur ceart airgead a thabhairt do lucht an rachmais i gcónaí — iad sin atá ag iarraidh táille ard ar pé obair a dhéanann siad. Sin go bunúsach an fhadhb. Nuair a bhí mé i m'Aire Stáit agus mé i mbun cúrsaí a bhain le spórt agus leis an aos óg bhí mé ag iarraidh i gcónaí a chur os comhair an Rialtais an mí-thuiscint a bhí ann maidir leis an rud bunúsach sin.

I shall be hoping, in the course of my comments, to soften the Minister's heart and if necessary to convert him. He is now given an opportunity to demonstrate the recognition he and his Government have for something which is so vital to the well-being and wholesome side of living in this island. If we think about it, we have no hesitation in recognising that there is abroad an idea in respect of any exercise, pursuit or interest which is harboured by any Irish man or woman, if people are doing it for nothing and are volunteers, first that it is unnecessary, unimportant or irrelevant or, secondly, that those involved have nothing else to do and that the enjoyment which they get out of it should in itself be recompense for what the are doing. I want the Minister and the House to ponder deeply on that. If they agree with me in the immediacy of their consideration, or on second consideration, that that is a fact, I hope they would agree that to continue in that attitude towards all our voluntary organisations would be a serious mistake and one which would make society and this country of ours all the poorer.

My thoughts will perhaps not be in the sequence in which I would like to present them, but I return to the reception and welcome which we gave to the last great visiting personality to this country, the President of the United States of America. It is fairly noticeable that in the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's own county of Tipperary or in the metropolis here, when we thought that we should perform for him, that we should demonstrate what was Irish, we did not bring in our legal profession, our teachers or any profession. When we wanted to demonstrate to him what we were proud of, in Dublin we brought in Clannad and in Tipperary representatives of the cultural movement there. I do not think that we did that just for the sake of appealing to the superficialities of what is Irish; we did it because we were anxious to demonstrate to him that we had something which was characteristically Irish. We recognised in our hearts, even though not in the matter of the disbursement of moneys, how vital that is to the nation.

As far as Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann are concerned, they have an organisation who have continued on for years now, with very little financial assistance from our Government and from the present Government, except — it should be said in the matter of criticising the present Government — that they did not give Comhaltas Ceoltóirí even the small percentage increases that came to other organisations. We have people who, day in, day out, have worried and applied themselves as best they could, first to saving our music and song, and having done that, apply themselves now to developing them. They are prepared to do this without any remuneration whatsoever, except the satisfaction they get from knowing that they are contributing to what is so vital to the enrichment of Irish life.

When I was making our case to our own Government on voluntary organisations, I said that the great merit of these was that people were doing it on a voluntary level. If they, as they should, aspired to doing a thing perfectly and professionally, inevitably there would be a gap between the maximised effort of the volunteer and what was necessary and the obligation was on the Government to fill that gap. That is all we are being asked to do here by Comhaltas Ceoltóirí. We are not being asked to nationalise the whole movement. Again, perhaps, it is a thought that we should bear in mind. If we accept — and nobody rejects — that the work which they are doing is vital and important, and if they were tomorrow to pull out and leave it to the Government of the day to carry out all those duties, what would that cost?

Suppose we wanted to nationalise Comhaltas Ceoltóirí tomorrow and suppose we had, as we have in the case of the legal profession, nobody wanting to do a hand's turn unless he got paid for it, what would it cost? Suppose a great traditional violinist or accordionist refused to go to Sligo to perform there or to give lessons unless he received £1,000 on the nail before he went, would we regard that as desirable? I am not going to make little of the need which exists for justice in the country, for courts, but the position at the moment is that if a learned professional in the courts areas is obliged to travel or even if not obliged to travel, his fee per day can be £1,000. I am not saying that all lawyers get that, but often in our courts there are on call perhaps two or three different solicitors for people who engage them, and the combined fee can be something amounting to that. We are talking about free legal aid, but nothing is free. When we examine it, what we are talking about is guaranteeing that the fee which the legal profession will require for their services is available to them. They do not, as Comhaltas Ceoltóirí will do, do anything for nothing.

Some may argue that what they are doing is far more important, but I would argue as well that what Comhaltas Ceoltóirí are doing is equally important, more positive, more wholesome and more patriotic. It will provide much more lasting benefits to this country and our people than the opinion or decision of a legal man. What I am endeavouring to say is that we disregard somebody who has a excellent contribution to make but is in an area where, traditionally, one does not ask for a fee. Ipso facto we leave him aside, and cater for those who, traditionally, guard their position that if they speak to anybody they must be paid. The person who makes music, the person who sings can do it for nothing. His or her talents are not to be recognised.

I am disappointed that Deputy Shatter is not here. I am often disturbed when I hear Deputy Shatter — I have heard Senator Robinson as well — discuss divorce. The case they would make in relation to the person who, unfortunately, has to pursue his or her right to entitlement at the moment, is that it cannot be done because of the cost and, therefore, something else must be done. Would they not consider helping by reducing the cost? Would they not do it for less money? That would be moving towards it. Instead of those in their profession making the case that they have feelings for the person who is pleading because of the cost perhaps we should be thinking of a situation where the State should employ people who will give this service at reasonable fees bearing in mind that it is the State and the community who have educated those people. The Minister of State, Deputy Birmingham, Deputy Shatter and I would not be in the professional position we are in if it were not for the fact that the rest of the community have contributed five-sixths of what it has cost to make lawyers and teachers of us. Surely those of us who claim to have feelings for our neighbours, who are continually advancing our concern for those people, should be as idealistic as the people in Comhaltas, in sport and in the community who are prepared to do this for nothing, bearing in mind that it is work which is beneficial to the community, which should give us satisfaction and which we should make less demanding on the purse of the taxpayer.

Mr. G. Birminghan

On a point of order, I regret interrupting Deputy Tunney but, given that this is a limited debate, would he be agreeable to a suggestion that we might share the remaining time between those who are anxious to get in, giving each person two or three minutes? There are several people in the House who wish to speak. I know the Deputy is making an important contribution and I do not want to interrupt it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Tunney to continue.

Mr. Tunney

I will give to the Minister of State the assistance he gave to me when I pleaded that I should be allowed in. Naturally I will bear in mind that he wants to speak. I notice that he is a beneficiary under the scheme. More power to him. His Department are getting £100,000. I recollect reading that last year his Department had £11 million unspent money. Why does he think he should take this £100,000? If he had £11 million which he did not spend last year and if Comhaltas are being evicted and have the ESB standing at their door telling them they will switch off their lights unless they pay the money they owe why would he not be magnanimous enough to recognise the plight of Comhaltas and say he is agreeable to giving that £100,000 to them? I do not know if he will have £11 million over this year.

I hope, in the course of his contribution, he will explain the situation where Comhaltas Ceoltóirí, who are in debt to the extent of £750,000, are only getting £400,000 and his Department, who had £11 million unspent last year, are getting £100,000. That is perhaps an oversimplistic presentation of what I see but I know the Minister of State will be happy to reply in the time which I am happy to give to him. I acknowledge — I said earlier on that I hoped to soften the Minister's heart but that would not prevent me from saying things which I considered to be true even if he did not like them — that he has moved from the initial position in respect of Comhaltas. I am accepting that, because of that, he accepts the important part being played by Comhaltas. I know that my colleague, Deputy Woods, has an amendment which asks for £500,000 for Comhaltas. I am still not happy with that.

I will return to what I was endeavouring to put before the House. Is the work Comhaltas are doing important? Is it vital to the nation? Do we accept that today, while we have very little memory of the ephemeral happenings of the past century we pay homage to Raftery, Carolan, or Eóin Ruadh Ó Súilleabháin, people who did what they did for nothing, people who were penniless but nevertheless have left us those priceless possessions? Did we at the time have any regard for the monks and the clerics who left us the Book of Kells, the Ardagh Chalice or any of those priceless treasures which we are happy to hawk around the world as indications of what the Irish are and the real contribution we make to the spiritual life at home and abroad?

I know one can be dismissive of a Comhaltas session and I know some parents have expressed slight reservations about Irish music being played in pubs and its association with drink. It is quite a social thing to have a drink while people are playing music. That is the way it is in every country in the world. I am afraid that, because of lack of funds, it could be necessary for Comhaltas to submit themselves to some sponsor or some agency which would not have any interest in Irish music or culture but would only have the interest of maximising profits for themselves.

It seems extraordinary that we should have to stand up here making a case for the outstanding organisation in Ireland who are doing our work in relation to what we call Irish culture, the restoration and the development of Irish music, song, dance, things which make us characteristically Irish. Why is it necessary that this should be done?

I hope to help the Minister of State, Deputy Birmingham. I congratulate him on the fact that he has held tight to his position in respect of all the volunteers who are engaged in looking after our youth. We will spend £2 million tomorrow trying to cure the problem of drugs and we will not give the Minister of State an extra £500,000 to prevent the problem arising. This is the illogicality of our approach to what is very important. It comes from what I said earlier on: perhaps a peasant attitude of looking up to the person who charges most for his services and disregarding the person who is idealistic or patriotic and is pursuing the essential.

We should not make the mistake of taking Comhaltas and Conradh na Gaeilge for granted. If they are not given recognition, inevitably they will become annoyed and then it will be too late to recover the position. Because of the activities of Comhaltas over the past decade tremendous strides have been made. Comhaltas sent to all Deputies a statement of their membership and their branches. I do not need that. From the time Comhaltas were established I have been a frequent attender at the local branch. When I was Minister of State, even though the Government were not giving us as much money as I would have wished, as Minister of State I was present to acknowledge what they were doing. I regard their activities as being far more important than the activities of many other organisations who apparently can call upon all Governments for money overnight. They plead certain cases. I am not just talking about the legal profession. I am not excluding the veterinary profession, or the teaching profession, and all the professions who get so much from the community.

We talk about free education. There is no free education. Education is paid for by the PAYE income taxpayer. We talk about equality of education. There is no equality of education and there will never be equality of education until we recognise that certain people are born with certain inequalities and move designedly to help them. It is not equality of education to expose everybody to the same curriculum. It is a myth, a fallacy, a lie and a deception to say that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a little bit away from the Bill.

Mr. Tunney

I am moving on to our whole education system and coming back to my theme of the professional against the voluntary worker.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, could I have some advice? There is an agreement to finish at 1.30 p.m. and I need to come in to reply very briefly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Unfortunately in the agreement which was made no time was allowed for the Minister to get in to reply. That can be done only by the agreement of the House. I cannot direct it.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I can deal on Committee Stage with most of the points raised. Is it the position that whether or not I get in Second Stage will conclude at 1.30 p.m.?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is the position.

Mr. Tunney

For my part I play the rules as they come to me. Earlier I was reminded of Standing Orders. If I were departing from Standing Orders in any way, I would be happy to correct that position.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair did not indicate that you were.

Mr. Tunney

I am perfectly in order if not perfectly welcome to say what I am saying.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You are perfectly welcome also.

Mr. Tunney

I was endeavouring to demonstrate our attitude to the volunteer as against the professional. Through no fault of his own somebody may be forced to opt out after he takes the intermediate certificate examination. Because he is intelligent and has a feeling for self-education and for improving himself he becomes involved in a voluntary organisation. Another person does his leaving certificate examination and moves on to university. I am not talking about people who get scholarships. I am talking about all the other students. Out of the pockets of the masses of the people there is a subsidy of approximately five-sixths of the cost.

Education is no longer the idealistic thing of the past, education for education's sake. Now it is education for what you can get out of it. The professions are involved in lobbies and exercises. They think up an attractive name and pretend they are concerned for the people. You do not have to do a very close examination to realise that they are copperfastening their own position. I do not criticise them unduly for that, but I do criticise them if they pretend they are concerned about their neighbour because, quite obviously, they are not. They suggest they have a better case for getting the money available than my friend who left school after the intermediate certificate examination and then became involved in Comhaltas. He gives day in and day out. He has a talent for music. He goes around in his own car, at his own expense. Now he finds that the headquarters of his university, his King's Inns, cannot get money.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Can the Deputy explain why his Government provided only £200,000 for Comhaltas?

Mr. Tunney

The Deputy has not been fulsome in his praise of any Government in respect of Comhaltas. We did not do too well for them, but at least we did better than the Minister.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): We are giving them £100,000 extra.

Mr. Tunney

I am talking about their grant. In 1982 the annual grant from Roinn na Gaeltachta of £125,000 was reduced to £110,000.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): That is not so.

Mr. Tunney

It has remained at that figure ever since.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): No. The position was that there was a grant of £105,000 and there was the last segment of a capital allocation of £20,000, The Deputy is adding together capital and current. The grant went up from £105,000 to £110,000 and remained at £110,000. On the Arts Council side it went up from £46,920 to £53,800 in 1981 and in 1984 it is £59,700.

Mr. Tunney

I am talking about Comhaltas.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I am talking about Comhaltas as well.

Mr. Tunney

Labhras Ó Murchu stated publicly in his letter of 14 Meitheamh that in 1982 their annual grant from Roinn na Gaeltachta was reduced from £125,000 to £110,000——

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): That is not correct.

Mr. Tunney

——and it has remained at that figure ever since.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): That portion is correct.

Dr. Woods

Surely the Minister is mixing up the question of capital and current?

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): No. Deputy Tunney is mixing up that question.

Dr. Woods

The Minister should let the Deputy make his speech. He has a long period for his speech. On Committee Stage we can get down to the nitty gritty.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I am sure the Deputy would not like to mislead anybody, but he is not giving correct information to the House.

Mr. Tunney

If, by dividing capital and current, the Minister is anxious to demonstrate that a sum of £5,000 is missing he is welcome to do that.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Arts Council give money to Comhaltas as well. They gave £59,700 in 1984 and the Department of Foreign Affairs supply money also.

Mr. Tunney

The Minister is aware that the real problem Comhaltas have derives from the fact that they were engaged in capital expenditure in connection with the Cultúrlann.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I am providing £100,000 more than the Deputy's Government were prepared to provide.

Mr. Tunney

I am saying it is not enough.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Deputy got the inspiration rather late. He should have told his own people about it.

Dr. Woods

How does the Minister know he did not do that? Incidentally, the Minister increased the amount overnight from £250,000 to £300,000. He is also allowed to change his mind.

Mr. Tunney

The Minister will note that I was not in praise of my Government either. I have been critical of them, as I was when I was Minister of State. I went to my Government and said that I had an involvement in the matter and that I was not going to go to Tullamore where volunteers such as Paddy Larkin had built a community centre and track merely to pay verbal homage to them. I said that unless the Government gave me some money to give as a token of our recognition I would not go. I did not go and I got the money. I suggest that made it easier for my successors to follow on with the work of giving recognition to all volunteers in this area. I will not be dissuaded from the theme of my contribution here. It is scandalous that here in Dáil Éireann, in an assembly that claims to have an interest in and a recognition of what can be described as things Irish, we have to spend time convincing each other of the need to help an organisation like this. This organisation is on the verge of liquidation and it is a tragedy that we have to haggle over a few hundred thousand pounds. We are making cases for other institutions. There is a provision in the legislation that the Taoiseach will have at his disposal £600,000 to disperse as he wishes. I am not saying he will not do a good job but we are giving him that amount for whomever he thinks fit but, at the same time, his Minister is saying that Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann will get only £300,000.

Mr. Shatter

The Deputy's party wanted to give them only £200,000.

Dr. Woods

Where did the Deputy come from? We had all of this a few minutes ago. The Deputy was sent in by the Minister this morning to say that and to keep saying it. That is what the Deputy is doing in a parrot-like way.

Mr. Shatter

I appreciate the tribute the Deputy is paying me to suggest that the Minister sent me in.

Mr. Tunney

In the absence of Deputy Shatter which I regret, I mentioned the strong case he made for guaranteeing good professional fees for his own profession and more power to him.

Mr. Shatter

I was guaranteeing free legal advice for people who cannot afford to pay for it. That is a slightly different thing. It is not an area with which the Deputy's party are concerned.

Mr. Tunney

I took that a step further and reminded the House that what Deputy Shatter was concerned about was guaranteeing ever-increasing fees for his own profession. He was not one bit concerned about poor people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Increased solicitors' fees has nothing to do with the Bill before the House.

Mr. Shatter

On a point of order, this is the second occasion in three months in this House where Deputy Tunney has tried to cast professional aspersions on me or on my character. I ask him to withdraw that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I wish to point out to Deputy Tunney that he may not refer to a member of a profession in this House and I ask him to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Tunney

I withdraw nothing. I said it is a characteristic of the legal profession to use free legal aid as the pretence of their concern for the man in the street. In my opinion it is only manipulating the man in the street to guarantee that they continue to get their own good fees. To me that is a statement of fact.

Mr. Shatter

It is a pity the Deputy did not work for nothing for five years in free legal advice centres in Dublin. Then he would have some knowledge of the subject.

Mr. Tunney

I gave my word to the Minister of State, Deputy Birmingham, that I would give him an opportunity of demonstrating to me and to the House how he found himself with plus £11 million last year but in need of £100,000 this year.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Nealon)

I do not know if Deputy Tunney was in Dublin Castle or, like myself, watching the banquet for President Reagan on television but for the sake of the record I wish to point out it was not Clannad who provided music on that occasion but Na Casadaigh.

Mr. Tunney

I know them personally. Unfortunately, I did not get an invitation.

Mr. Nealon

There is a sum of £300,000 for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and it is worth repeating that it is £100,000 more than was provided by the previous Government. In addition, a sum of £600,000 is being made available for purposes in relation to culture and the arts, making a total of £900,000. A sum of £100,000 has been designated towards the cost of repair and renovation of the premises of the Royal Irish Academy of Music at Westland Row. They are an excellent body and they deserve that help.

The remaining £500,000 will be used to help fund capital projects for a capital programme for the arts proposed by the Arts Council. The actual management of the additional funds will be delegated to the Arts Council as the Government have no wish to encroach on the statutory competence or autonomy of that body. The additional capital assistance which will be made available to such interests will, of necessity, complement rather than supplant their own fund-raising activities. I understand that before a public commitment is given to assist a specific project, potential recipients of such assistance will need to be firmly committed to providing the remainder of the funds necessary to complete the projects. An amount of work has still to be done in this area before a detailed announcement can be made.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. G. Birmingham)

I want to address myself specifically to the provision of £100,000 for community facilities. In this year's Estimates there is a sum of £1.2 million to allow for ongoing work on substantial community facilities throughout the country. A number of community centres have found themselves in difficulties and this sum will be applied to such groups to get them over the hump. It is an additional injection to assist local volunteers with their fund raising. It is proposed to allocate the sums as follows but before I list them I wish to point out that this announcement is being made now in the aftermath of an election, some two-and-a-half years before the next polls and not in advance an election as might be the practice of other administrations.

A sum of £9,000 will be allocated to the community centre in Ennistymon. They received a grant of £85,000 in March 1982. The work is practically completed and the additional £9,000 will make that possible. The community centre at Banteer, County Cork, which is in a somewhat similar situation, will benefit to the tune of £5,000. The community centre at Dromtariffe, County Cork, will receive a sum of £10,000. This is a small rural area and the local volunteers have done magnificent work in raising a huge sum of money. The proposed grant will allow for the completion of the centre. The Irish Wheelchair Association day care and sports centre at Clontarf will benefit to the tune of £5,000. This is an enormous project and the money being granted is little more than a gesture of goodwill and support for a magnificent voluntary group.

The community centre at Durrow, County Laois, will receive a sum of £3,000 which will allow the centre to be completed. The community centre at Caherdavin, Limerick, will receive a sum of £11,000 and the community centre at Southhill, Limerick, will receive £5,000. This is an area where fund raising is particularly difficult because of the level of unemployment and the local people there have done a magnificent job. The community centre at Newcastle West, County Limerick, will receive £9,000. The community centre at Emyvale, County Monaghan, who found themselves in difficulties in completing the centre will receive £5,000. The sports complex, Larkspur Park, Cashel, County Tipperary, will receive £14,000 and the indoor athletic complex at Nenagh, County Tipperary, will receive £14,000. The Catholic Youth Council outdoor centres in County Wicklow will receive £5,000. There is a project there providing three facilities at Oakwood, Ballycrean and Arklow which is completed but the interest repayments are proving a burden on the day-to-day activities of the centres. The sum allocated will assist them in meeting those repayments. The sports complex at Mullingar is a massive project but it is now running into difficulties. This will receive £5,000.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Noonan,

Limerick East): Most of the points raised can be dealt with on Committee Stage but Deputy Woods raised one point I should like to deal with now. He asked if there were dormant balances in any other court apart from the High Court. The answer is no. The moneys relate to moneys in the High Court and I am not aware of any dormant balances in the Circuit Court or in any other court. The moneys date back in some cases for a number of centuries. It may be of interest to know that there are not dormant funds accruing now. The reason we have these dormant funds over a long period is due mainly to the fire in the Four Courts in 1922 which destroyed records and made it impossible for people to claim particular funds which became dormant.

Question put and declared carried.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The House has already ordered that Committee Stage be taken later today.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.