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object of this Bill is to enable part of the funds of suitors vested in the Accountant of the Courts of Justice to be withdrawn and applied for the various purposes indicated in sections 3 and 4 of the Bill.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 This represents the aggregate of the moneys which have been withdrawn from the funds of suitors over the past 200 years under the authority of various Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, the Parliament of the United Kingdom and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.