Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the nature of any commitment given by his Department to fund The Big Issues magazine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17497/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - The Big Issues Funding.
Richard Bruton
Ceist:120 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the grounds on which the Government withdrew its support to a publication (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19013/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 120 together.
Following a number of meetings between officials of my Department, FÁS and The Big Issues, I wrote to the management of the magazine on 8 July 1998 to say that if it refocused exclusively on the production and distribution of the magazine, it would have the best possibility of resolving the serious problems facing the magazine and arriving at a viable solution. I also said that if it was prepared, having examined this possibility, to focus exclusively on the magazine and prepare a viable action plan which would include its restructuring proposals to that end, I would be prepared to have my Department work with it, with FÁS and other public sector organisations, with the objective of arriving at viability involving a co-ordinated public sector response.
Subsequently I received a response from the management of the magazine accepting the recommendation that it focus exclusively on the production and distribution of the magazine. I then recommended that The Big Issues management and its accountants prepare a plan and present it to the agencies concerned, thereby providing an opportunity for assessment.
Officials of my Department and FÁS held further meetings with The Big Issues management on 25 and 27 August to discuss its action plan. The discussions were based on the undertaking received from The Big Issues management that it would focus exclusively on the production and distribution of the magazine and on the understanding that full information had been provided.
I have always supported the objectives of The Big Issues magazine and have been as sympathetic and supportive as I can be in helping it find a way out of its difficulties, which are grave. The crisis at the magazine arose, at least in part, because of the involvement by its management in other activities and it was for this reason that I asked The Big Issues management to refocus on the production and distribution of the magazine. The undertakings given by the management of the magazine were fundamental to consideration for Government assistance. It is regrettable that, because these undertakings were not fulfilled, it did not prove possible to commit further Government support.
At any of the meetings that he attended did the Taoiseach give an undertaking that the Minister for Finance would provide financial assistance of approximately £300,000 to keep The Big Issues in operation?
At the meetings I attended I had a strong desire to help the magazine in any way I could, particularly for the sake of the vendors. I was involved a long time ago when the social and community employment schemes were availed of. Although most of the people concerned meant well and tried to help, unfortunately they had their hands in too many pies which stretched resources to the point where they could not be helped.
Were they mistaken in thinking the Taoiseach had given an indication that they could expect financial assistance of approximately £300,000 from the Minister for Finance?
Although figures were discussed with my officials, figures were not discussed with me. Between £200,000 and £300,000 was needed to resolve the magazine's difficulties. I would have liked it to receive this, if everything had been in order and on the basis that the magazine was restructured and the full story told but for one reason or another it did not do so. It became involved in other areas about which the Department did not know.
Does the Taoiseach agree that this sorry saga highlights once again the need for legislation dealing with charitable status to enable us to see clearly which organisations are considered to be a charity and those which are considered to be a business? Does he agree there is confusion as to whether The Big Issues was considered to be a charity or a business?
As required under the law, The Big Issues had a memorandum of association which was to promote the welfare, well-being and relief of distressed people among the homeless, long-term unemployed and those on immediate release from prison by providing them with an occupational means of income and to aid in the provision of temporary and permanent places of residence. That was what it was engaged in. It was not a charitable organisation within the terms of the old charitable bequests and donations legislation but it was intended to be non-profit making. It became involved in a host of other activities which drained its resources and placed enormous liabilities on it until it reached a stage where it was impossible for anyone to help them.
Would the legislation clarify matters?
I do not know if it would. There would still be a tendency for organisations to drift into areas which are not within their remit as stated in their memoranda of association.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the similar project in Britain extends into the area of advice on drug abuse, employment opportunities and so on as part of the overall project and that the magazines are distributed from a premises where vendors can get advice as well as purchasing magazines? Would the Taoiseach agree that any scheme to help deprived people must have that sort of back up if it is to be part of the social services as distinct from a venture which may or may not make money? This is the kernel of the problem. The structure of a social service must be different from that of a commercial enterprise. Has the Taoiseach looked at that aspect of the overall management structure?
I have not examined it in such detail. I know that FÁS has tried to put expertise, professionalism and resources into organisations such as this and to structure them in a planned way. The Big Issues tried to move into desirable but costly areas and it had neither the financial nor management resources to develop in that way. Deputy Barrett seems to be saying that FÁS could help organisations like The Big Issues. FÁS is involved with community employment and other schemes and most such organisations eventually come within the FÁS budget because people who are homeless or long-term unemployed normally get employment on schemes. At the moment FÁS help with financial controls and auditing but it does not give the sort of advice which Deputy Barrett is speaking of.
Will the Taoiseach ask his Department to examine the manner in which the similar project is managed in Britain? He may get an opportunity to report back to the House. The project is worthwhile but it is important, if it is to be relaunched, that it is done in a viable fashion and that we know what we are trying to achieve.
The matter is not really the responsibility of my Department. The Big Issues became involved with my Department through its involvement in the Great Famine Project. It had been advised by a Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach in the last Government not to become involved but it did not take that advice. That was the beginning of the financial problems. FÁS has been trying to help the organisation and I will make Deputy Barrett's views known to FÁS if we continue to assist it, even though we will not be giving the organisation State funds.
Could the Taoiseach indicate the way in which this company was owned? It was a privately owned company. Did the magazine vendors have any shares in it or was ownership confined to the small number of people who initiated the project? Was the company ever commercially viable or did it always depend on State grants to stay afloat? I return to Deputy Sargent's question and ask when we will have adequate charities legislation so that companies of this kind are bound strictly within the law.
That is a legislation question. I do not have the information with me but legislation on charities is in the system——
Other charities take precedence.
I am not sure if that would have made a difference to a company like this. In terms of the structure, I have not seen the papers for some months but, as I understand it, the organisation was owned by the vendors but the costs were going to three named people. That is not the structure as set out in the memorandum.