Limerick East): This is mainly the interpretation section.
Funds of Suitors Bill, 1984: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, lines 10 to 12, to delete paragraph (b).
I have read and re-read virtually everything that has been said in support of the allocation of £600,000 toward the renovations of the King's Inns. I might repeat that I do not think anybody is arguing about the aesthetic and architectural value of that building. I would associate myself with something Senator Magner said, that is, that if it is to be a Philistine in these days to suggest that we reorder our priorities in the light of current realities, then there is no doubt in my mind that I shall be classified as a Philistine.
There are a number of aspects of this recommendation that need to be addressed. The first needing to be disposed of is the suggestion that, because previous administrations gave a commitment, we are bound thereby. Clearly that is not a decision that can in any way be sustained because commitments of both the previous Coalition administration and the intervening Fianna Fáil one have been broken for what various Governments saw to be very good reasons such as the changing state of public finances, the need to give good example to the public in terms of the use of funds, the need to get the public well attuned to the fact that funds that come up for disposal by the Government are now extremely restricted, are under extreme pressure and cannot be in any way controlled. In that context the question of the allocation of a sum of £600,000 to the renovation of a building would have to be examined with great consideration of and sensitivity to the perceptions, the feelings and, above all, the needs of so many other groups in our society.
One thing which has not been answered in either the Dáil or the Seanad is the question not of the need for the work to be done but as to why this need is apparently infinitely more important than a long list of other needs that all of us could produce to every Minister in Government of various more or less deserving groups. That is the issue which has not been addressed in the debate and which needs to be addressed fundamentally. Why is this more important than so many other areas? What is so important in this project that the feelings and the perceptions of the public at large must be ignored? There is no Member of this House, I would respectfully suggest, who is not aware now that public opinion generally is, to say the least, somewhat taken aback at the idea of the Oireachtas directly or indirectly financing the renovation of the premises of what is publicly recognised and identified as a wealthy profession.
I would like to address some of the arguments that I have been given to sustain this point. The suggestion has come before us again and again that somehow this is a benevolent society providing free or relatively inexpensive access to third level education. I do not think that the public are in the least persuaded by that argument. If that body had asked for incorporation in the State sector of third level education, had sought assistance under the State's umbrella of third level education, had, for instance, to come under the aegis of the National Council for Educational Awards and have their awards awarded by them and had all their procedures and regulations scrutinised by an external agency, then I for one would cast a more favourable eye on their benevolence and would be less inclined to suspect that what they are running is a very effective closed shop whereby they determine the rules for admission and for continuing in practice and whether you are fit to be a member of that profession.
There is at the basis of this discussion a very important symbolic value. In a time of extreme economic exigency, many people are suffering continuously from what both major parties in this House recognise as the necessity for financial rectitude. Many voluntary charitable organisations are being stretched on the one hand by the growing demands of increasing poverty and on the other hand by the increasing restrictiveness of public funds. Many groups are beginning to observe for themselves the effect of financial circumstances on marriage and, as the stress on marriage develops as a result of high unemployment, more and more of these problems come to legal advice centres and various other counselling groups all of whom are suffering from extreme financial hardship. All of these people and groups therefore want to know why the Houses of the Oireachtas will decide that £600,000 of money available apparently for the Oireachtas to dispose of should go to this project rather than to the hundred or two hundred other projects. A failure to address that issue as to why the needs of those premises are so much more important than all the others, is effectively saying that we here have fundamentally different priorities from the rest of Irish society. That is why I move this amendment, to indicate that priorities should be different fundamentally. I will be very interested to hear why this project was given the priority it has received.
Let us forget about the decisions of other administrations. They do not hold water here. There are ample cases where previous commitments have not been found binding. Let us not hear about benevolent organisations. That is not the central issue. The central issue is the decision to allocate over half a million pounds to the renovation of one premises which are used, in the eyes of the public, by a relatively privileged profession. That is what the public fail to understand and in it many people see a very effective symbol of the detachment of both Houses of the Oireachtas from and their irrelevance to the sufferings of an enormous number of people in our society.
Limerick East): As I explained on Second Stage, the Bill is providing the amount of £600,000 for the King's Inns project. The Government in deciding this decided to honour the commitment given by previous administrations. Substantially the same provision was contained in the Funds of Suitors Bill, 1981 which passed all Stages in the Seanad on 8 October 1981. It was welcomed by those Senators who contributed to the debate on that occasion.
I would like to stress that what is involved here is State intervention to ensure the future preservation of one of the finest pieces of architecture in our capital city. The Government accept that the present occupants of the one-third of the building which is not owned by the State have not got the resources required to have the urgent and major renovation work carried out. It is important to realise that the question of State intervention would arise in these circumstances regardless of who occupied the building. The work will be done by the Office of Public Works in tandem with their work on the two-thirds of the building which is State-owned. The work which may be carried out by the OPW is limited in relation to both the amount which can be expended and time.
Various people in this House, in the other House and outside the Houses have commented that the Society of the King's Inns is an alien and elitist organisation. Critics who express such views either seek to mislead or are misinformed themselves about the facts. The graduates of the King's Inns include Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet, Thomas Davis, Daniel O'Connell, Isaac Butt, Henry Grattan and Pádraig Pearse. Since the State was founded, five graduates of the King's Inns, Mr. John A. Costello, Mr. Jack Lynch, Mr. Liam Cosgrave, Deputy Charles Haughey and Deputy Garret FitzGerald have occupied the office of Taoiseach. The present leader of the Labour Party, the Tánaiste Deputy Dick Spring, and the previous leader, Deputy Michael O'Leary, were likewise graduates. There are also illustrious Members of this House and the other House who are graduates of King's Inns.
In saying that, I am not doing a noble roll call of illustrious graduates of the King's Inns just for the sake of doing so. I am trying to illustrate that the Society of the King's Inns have been at the centre of Irish political life for many generations and are neither elitists nor alien to this country. The King's Inns students are drawn from all walks of life. They include people who have been teachers, nurses, gardaí, accountants, civil servants and people from many other fields such as insurance and journalism. Seán Mac-Bride, for example, whom many people in this country admire, graduated from the King's Inns.
There are three main reasons why I am bringing the proposal forward here. Firstly, it was a commitment given in 1981, and in reintroducing the Bill with additions it was appropriate that the commitment given and carried through all Stages in the Seanad should be fulfilled. Secondly, the King's Inns is one of the finest buildings we have in Dublin, and if this intervention is not made it will fall down, and I do not think that this city can afford the loss of another fine building. If it is not funded from the funds of suitors I cannot in all honesty tell the House that it will be funded from any other source, either private or public. The money has been used for the kind of project which would not be funded from another source and certainly this is one such project.
Senator Brendan Ryan making his contribution on Second Stage spoke about his own profession which, I gather from what he said, is the engineering profession. We have many fine professions in this country, engineers, architects, dentists, doctors, barristers, solicitors, but who built Belfield? Whose money paid for Belfield? Whose money paid for UCC and UCG? Whose money repairs it — only the taxpayers? Whose money builds the colleges for the engineers, for example? Whose money repairs the premises for engineers when they need repair — only the taxpayers? Here we have a situation where we have a third level institution to which public funds are not allocated, the building is falling down; they educate students and if we do not intervene the building will fall down. We are saying that the funds of suitors is an appropriate source for allocation of funds for the preservation of this building. I do not think the Senator's argument stands up.
Last week on Second Stage each member of my party expressed the gravest reservations about the specific allocation of this amount of money for the unkeep or repair of King's Inns. We made it clear that we did not object to the actual spending of the money through the Office of the Public Works for which one of our colleagues, the Minister of State, has charge. We objected on principle and on the basis of priority and last week on Second Stage there was no priority specifically mentioned in the Bill that would fundamentally meet the arguments put by members of my party in the House. In fairness to the Minister, in subsection (3) (e) there was a vague reference to the provision of services for the legal aid system. It was because of that that our party decided to put down an amendment specifically to have our priorities right and to designate this amount of money, which is mentioned in the section, for the civil legal aid system. In the parliamentary party it is common knowledge that all the Senators expressed reservations and because we expressed such strong reservations to the Tánaiste and the other members of our party a meeting was arranged as a matter of urgency with the Minister for Justice who has responded to Senator Ryan's criticisms. I am glad to put on the record of this House that arising out of that meeting between the Tánaiste and Leader of our Party and the Minister, an agreement has been reached to set aside £400,000 from the residual funds arising from the Funds of Suitors Bill and that this money will be devoted exclusively to the improvement of civil legal aid services. We would like the Minister to elaborate further on the exact details during the debate if possible because we would like as a party to ensure that that system would be sustained and continued by the Houses of the Oireachtas. But it was a question of priorities for the Labour Party and with that commitment from the Tánaiste and the Minister we are satisfied that our fundamental objections and priorities have been met.
Senator Ryan's amendment is an amendment to the whole section but it does not indicate specifically how he wants the money to be spent. If we were deleting the section we would be specifically allocating the money to the civil legal aid system. The Minister has now met us on that point. So at the moment we have no objection to the money being spent on the preservation of what is, in fact, a minor classic building. I said on Second Stage that the possibility of public ownership of this building should be pursued by the Minister and I still hold that view because there is something fundamentally wrong with a minor classic building being allowed to fall into such disrepair as it has fallen into without somebody taking responsibility. The people who frequent it and use it and all the illustrious people who graduated from it in the past should have a commitment to it. I am sure we could pursue that and still ensure that the investment of public money would be done in a rightful way.
We as Members of the Oireachtas have a responsibility to see that this is done. Although technically it is not public money, it is money that technically the public are accountable for and because of that the removal of this section would certainly not have met any of our wishes as it would leave it hanging in the air. We were being most specific and because of that we have secured an agreement for the actual preservation and improvement of the civil legal aid services. I want to thank the Minister publicly for having met the Tánaiste and for giving the commitment that we were looking for. I am quite sure that the Members present would like to make their own contributions also. We presume that the Board of Works, who are a public body, will be actually doing the work and that it will be paid for by the State. If that is the case, something useful will have come out of this whole debate and there will have been recognition by the Houses of the Oireachtas of the importance of the building. We are serving notice on those people who are in the privileged position of being able to use the building that it must be maintained by them in future and, if not, a transfer of ownership must take place so that the State can look after the building properly. For that reason it would be unwise of us to support the amendment suggested by Senator Ryan which would in fact just delete the section and not be specific on where the money should be spent.
When Senator Ryan was opening his speech on this section he in a sense answered his own case. He said there are hundreds of things that could be done with this money and that anybody here could think of other and better things that could be done with it. Of course that is true. If any one of the hundreds of things that could be done with this money was put before the Seanad as a means of availing of the money, there would be people in the Seanad who would say that that is not what should be done with the money; that one of the other hundreds of things should be done. So no matter what is proposed as a useful object for spending this money on, as a worthy purpose for it there are some who will say they can think of better ways of spending it.
There are, of course, hundreds of ways in which this money could be spent. This is just one way and I support this particular way. There is a very strong argument for using it this way. But I do not deny that there are other worthy purposes to which the money could be put.
Senator Ryan has acknowledged that it is an outstanding building and that it would be a pity to see it collapse. It is not merely from the aesthetic point of view that it would be a pity to see it collapse, because if it collapsed another building would have to be built to accommodate the activities taking place there now. The State would have to erect a building for the Registry of Deeds. They use approximately two-thirds of the building. There would have to be a building for the education of the legal profession. At the moment this is being done there without any cost to the State. If that building collapsed, in the same way as the State takes responsibility for so many other professions and so many other aspects of education, it would have to do the same there. That would cost the taxpayer far more money. It was pointed out the last time that part of the building is now regularly used as a court. Again, that is something that the State would have to make other provision for. Senator Ryan and possibly some other Members or members of the public have some idea that this is a building where members of the Bar disport themselves. That is completely fanciful and contrary to the facts. The fact is that the average member of the Bar rarely, if ever, visits that building. On average he might go up there once or twice a year. It is used for the purposes I have outlined.
The only involvement a member of the Bar has is that approximately 10 per cent of the fee which he pays to the Law Library to enable him to use its facilities goes to the upkeep of the Inns. So he subsidises the upkeep and the maintenance of the Inns. That is the only involvement he has in it.
The building serves very useful, essential purposes, and I believe this grant is something which is badly needed. I support the section.
I agree with most of the sentiments put forward by Senator Brendan Ryan when he proposed this amendment. My contribution on Second Stage and those of the other members of the Labour Party, underlined the collective feeling we had, and still have and the sense of outrage we feel at the fact that public money should be spent in this way at a time when each of us in our constituencies is faced with genuine cases of deprivation and the lack of State funds to deal with them.
I disagree with Senator Brendan Ryan on the net effect of his amendment which would simply leave £600,000 in the funds of suitors. The deletion of section 3 (b) would simply take that money away from the purpose outlined in that section and leave it in the funds of suitors. I would be much happier to see it spent.
The problem for us in the Labour Party was that we were met with the apparent consensus and unanimity of the two major parties about this issue. We saw that the money would be spent and, therefore, were obliged to set our own priorities. What we set before us was to achieve a proper funding of a free legal aid system. I am pleased with the outcome of the stand we have taken. An agreement has been made as a result of the Tánaiste meeting the Minister for Justice whereby a sum of £400,000 is to be set aside specifically for the funding of the free legal aid system. The situation whereby the moneys allocated were simply the residue left over when everybody else had got their cut was totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable, for instance, the question of the new Children's Court with the obvious possibility of overruns on that. For that reason we must be happy with our lot and accept that since the money will be spent on the King's Inns at least we put up a good fight and won something for the benefit of the general public. It does not placate my conscience or the consciences of most of the Labour Party. I am a little taken aback at the list of the famous the Minister rattled off when responding to Senator Brendan Ryan's opening proposition. It is hardly a roll call of the common man. Every name given would support the contention that it is a school for the élite.
(Limerick East): Wolfe Tone.
As regards his point that all other professions are trained in schools financed by the public purse, it must be remembered that these are all owned by the State whereas this institution is not. This is a private institution. If it was handed over to the State my view would be totally different and the Labour Party objections to spending the money in this way would be overcome.
I reluctantly accept that the Labour Party got the best deal open to it and it is with the greatest reluctance that I see money being given, albeit after other moneys have been dispersed, to the King's Inns.
I did not mean to join the debate on this amendment because Senator Eoin Ryan has said a good deal of what I would want to say and what I have already said on Second Stage. I intervene to correct Senator Howlin. The Minister indicated that other professions were educated in buildings which were largely provided and repaired by the State. Senator Howlin agreed but said they were owned by the State. The universities are not owned by the State. They are, happily, subvented by the State and my university is grateful for the fact that its historical buildings which, like the King's Inns, are architecturally important, have received a great deal of money from the State in order to preserve them. However, there is no way Trinity College is owned by the State. Exactly the same applies to the National University of Ireland. The State money put into those buildings does not constitute ownership. The State owns two-thirds of the King's Inns which is more than can be said about the universities.
As regards privilege or non-privilege, anyone who enters third level education or any of the professions is, to some extent, privileged. In many of our professions we have a more open entry system than in other countries but to some extent all professions are privileged and that applies to the legal profession. I accept that the Minister's list of famous graduates of the Inns includes people whom I would not say came from privileged backgrounds. There are those among us who come from less privileged backgrounds and they are much more part of the common man.
I welcome the provision of money to the Civil Legal Aid Board. As will be clear from my speech on Second Stage, I attach a great deal of importance to this. There is need for more civil legal and centres. The £400,000 can be spent in a capital way rather than feeding the scheme's normal expenses over the years. We need more solicitors. We should try to avoid spending more money than is necessary on the administration of the scheme. Quite enough is spent on that already. From time to time the existing centres have to close to the public through lack of personnel.
As regards the Coolock law centre and the Government civil legal aid centres, I support the giving of money to the Coolock centre. I should like to see the present legal aid centres become more community centres in helping people to understand the law and educating them about their rights and so on. When one is told that the Coolock law centre can be run for £40,000 and is extremely economic by comparison with the Civil Legal Aid Board centres it should be remembered that the Coolock centre constantly employ counsel for their cases and no counsel who appears for them is paid a penny. The Coolock centre can survive on less money because their barristers are not paid and because they have only one extremely overworked solicitor. The previous lady and the present lady are trying to cope with enormous workloads. The standard of service they can provide is thereby lowered. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with either of these two solicitors. They are highly efficient and very committed people but one person can only do so much. As far as I can see they work 23½ hours a day. The kind of service that can be provided through a centre run on that amount of money is limited. It would be a good idea if another solicitor for the Coolock law centre could be employed or if another centre were set up on the south side of Dublin or in a rural area. This could be financed out of the £400,000.
It must be realised that when the whole civil legal aid system was brought in an agreement was made between the Department of Justice and the Bar Council as to the fees to be paid to barristers for appearing in civil legal aid cases. One of the clauses of this agreement was that the Bar Council agreed that barristers would accept a level of fees in these cases which was considerably below the commercial rate of fee because they felt that it was part of the service of the profession to the community. It was felt that it would, to some extent, replace the cases which were done on a charity basis. I am not saying that all barristers are marvellous because they accepted this kind of situation. I am, however, suggesting that in other professions it might not be all that common. Is there, for instance, a stated agreement with the Department of the Environment that civil engineers work for less than their normal fee because they happen to be putting up a bridge in a poorer district, or anything of that sort? When we look at the civil legal aid system, various people are putting in a certain amount of service to the community and that is a good thing and something which should be continued. When we go to spend our £400,000 on the civil legal aid scheme, it should be spent in such a way that it will, to the greatest possible extent, enlarge the service that is available to the people who so badly need it.
It must be a source of comfort that at times of pressing need la grande coalition comes into effects, with all members of the Bar seemingly, irrespective of their political parties, coming together and agreeing on a particular line. This is very comforting in times of political instability.
It was tested on the last evening on the vote.
Senator Honan will bear in mind that we are as political as Fianna Fáil at times, although not always.
Your party are learning.
There is no place for amateurs any more. When the Minister was giving a list of illustrious names, I remembered a remark which Seán Lemass used to make, "It would be a poor day for Ireland if the Houses of the Oireachtas were peopled by experts". It looks as if they are becoming peopled by experts. On a more serious note, much has been said about minor classics. Previous Governments, not just the present one, cut down on renovation grants and local authority repairs. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me, my house is a minor classic, because otherwise I would be foolish to pay a mortgage on it. It is where I live and is important to me. Thousands of houses around the country require work to be done and the owners cannot afford it. Should they try to have their houses classified and appeal to the Minister on the basis that they are minor classics? I would not have minded so much if the King's Inns came under the same strictures as community associations or councils on a pound for pound basis. I thought that fair. They were getting this money without any input. It has become a college, an institution, a university, all sorts of things in the last couple of weeks — things which I never knew. I suppose it will be open to the public next week, with guided tours.
The reality of the situation as regards the Labour Party is that it was a compromise. We were extremely concerned that the Bill as at present did not seem to give any guarantees in terms of quantifiable amounts for civil legal aid. That was one of our main concerns, our objections, as Senator Howlin put it very well, to the Funds of Suitors Bill in regard to the £600,000 to the King's Inns. I appreciate that the Minister listened to what we had to say and I hope he will indicate a specific sum, for which I should be grateful. His Funds of Suitors Bill is an imaginative one. He has taken all the money whereas before it was simply the interest. In that case, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, the Youth Employment Scheme, civil legal aid and now, unfortunately, the King's Inns all benefit together. Our objections to the latter remain but nonetheless we are glad that when legislation such as this comes before the House there is a Minister who is prepared to be reasonable and to listen to the case which we put forward.
Like other Members of the House, I feel that there are many other deserving projects which perhaps should be helped under this Bill, but it would be impossible to please everybody. There is serious decay in this very important building of the King's Inns. The State has a responsibility for the preservation of all buildings of architectural merit but, in addition, in this case the State owns two-thirds of the composite buildings. It seems that the State has a direct responsibility for the maintenance of two-thirds of the building. I asked on Second Stage what exactly that ownership meant. Is the State paying rent for any portion? However, the Minister did not answer that question. I must accept the Minister's words that the Society of the King's Inns are unable to contribute the other third, although strictly they should. If this amendment is passed there will be a further delay in providing funds, and further deterioration. At the end of the day, the State will still have to provide the funds for the maintenance of the building.
Last week, during Second Stage debate, Senator O'Leary made the point that we are making choices about how money should be spent. We are talking here about a very small amount of money in contrast with the amounts in the Government's current expenditure programme — £2.8 million, which is minuscule in comparison with £5,000 million. It may seem strange that we in the Labour Party decided to make an issue of how this £2.8 million should be spent. It is quite simple and quite straightforward. When the idea of funding the King's Inns came first in 1981, it was in the context then of Government commitment at that time to introduce a comprehensive civil legal aid programme nationally. Now, three years later, we were concerned that while some progress had been made, we are still a long way away from a comprehensive programme of civil legal aid. Indeed, some portion of the civil legal aid programme was under severe pressure because of the financial and manpower resources at present available. In my case, I was very concerned, as were others, at the fact that the most outstanding neighbourhood law centre in the country, in Coolock, which costs a minuscule amount of £40,000 a year to run, was under threat of closure and had been consistently over the last two years, despite the best efforts of all concerned to secure that small amount of money so that people in the north city area could have access to law through the only means available to them.
We examined this Bill and saw that given the nature of the fund it is probably appropriate that the money be spent on matters related to culture and to law in the general sense. It is a small amount of money. Given its nature, the broad areas that the Minister has designated for it are correct — the arts, culture and the law. However, when we were faced with the reality that the civil legal system is breaking down for want of a very small amount of money in the centre in Coolock and, indeed, in the case of the whole scheme and then saw that it was proposed to give £600,000 for the restoration of the King's Inns building, we were faced with a very clear choice. We in our group had no option but to choose civil legal aid, despite the fact that we are aware and conscious of the value and merits of this building and the need to retain and maintain it for future generations.
As Senator O'Leary said, we had to make a choice at that stage and we made it. We were prepared to put down our amendment to substitute civil legal aid for the King's Inns for the expenditure of that £600,000 until agreement was reached between the Minister and the Tánaiste last Friday afternoon. If that agreement had not been reached, we would have put in our amendment and we would have voted on it. The Oireachtas is constantly making choices. However, the greater number of choices made are made in the interests of the privileged, the elite and those with means, and against those who are poor and unemployed, and who are in need of the support of the Oireachtas.
The net composition of the Oireachtas is dominated by two conservative parties. They act that way and that is fine, but we had the opportunity to inject our philosophy into this last week, and we have done so. I am pleased that we have been able to do this. It is a compromise but at least the choice in this case has been bent somewhat in the interests of the under-privileged and it is the function of this party to do that.
I am happy with the other proposals in the Bill. The arts are the right area for some expenditure, given that we are talking about a small amount of funding anyway in this context. I would like the Minister to indicate to us — and I am sure this will not cause him any difficulty — that £400,000 will be left after the Children's Court is built and that it will be available for civil legal aid. I agree with Senator McGuinness that we should focus as much of that money as possible on neighbourhood law centres because not only are they more cost-effective but they also provide a much wider range of services to local communities than the institutionalised civil legal aid system which gains most of the public funding which is available for this service.
We have reached a compromise that our party can go along with. I found the Opposition's performance extraordinary because on Second Stage speaker after speaker welcomed the Bill and said it was an outstanding Bill and then they voted against it. I do not have to talk about hypocrisy like that. This Seanad Labour group have indicated how we expect public expenditure programmes to be directed in the future. We expect a shift in favour of those who are at the bottom of the heap and whom we seek to represent. I hope the Government have taken on board what happened here, and that it will influence their decision making in the coming months. If not, there will be a similar reaction from our group in the Seanad.
I was about to congratulate the Labour Party, but they may not want my congratulations when I am finished.
We do.
Let us not get too carried away by the insignificance of this sum of money. Now, £2.8 million is a very small sum of money but, nevertheless, it represents close to 30 per cent of the total allocation from all health boards to voluntary organisations in a given year under section 65 of the Health Act, 1953. The last time I looked at Estimates for the Department of Health that sum amounted to about £10 million. So this £2.8 million is admittedly small, but it is very big to all those organisations who get small, but much boasted about, assistance from health boards.
My friends in the Labour Party have made the good point that, notwithstanding the excellence of the individuals the Minister listed, they all have one thing in common. They are rich and probably were rich before they went into the King's Inns and their passing through the King's Inns enabled them to become considerably richer, intellectually as well as in every other way. Nevertheless that was the effective contribution the King's Inns made to their career, and I am not decrying that fact.
There has been a lot of talk about the fact that a large part of the King's Inns is owned or used by the State, but so is every rented, decaying, unmaintained, broken-windowed local authority house and flat in this city and country and no money is available to repair them. Therefore, the argument that because the State has an interest in this building certain funds should be allocated to it does not hold. People have made reference to university funding. If ever I regretted anything I regret the rather intemperate remarks I made about my own profession, because they gave the Minister a magnificent "out" from talking about the real issue. Instead he talked about my profession. My profession is well able to defend itself so I will not pursue that any further.
There is a difference. Universities are funded by the State through the Higher Education Authority. Every proposal they make is assessed and they are accountable for the way they use that money in the interests of the community. So the niceties of the university being a private institution are somewhat different from the niceties of an entirely private institution which draws up its own regulations, determines its own entry standards and determines a number of other things.
I do not understand where this £400,000 that has been promised has come from. The Minister talked about cultural and community centres and then said:
I estimate that the balance of the funds available after the above payments have been made will be about £1.19 million. the residue would be spent in building a new Children's Court...estimated to cost about £750,000....
As reported at column 712 of the Official Report of 3 July he said:
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 the 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.
What was unrealistic to speculate upon one week ago has now become £400,000. I would like to know — and I am sure other people would like to know — where this money will come from. An accusation was directed against my amendment that it did not specify where the money would go. Let me remind Members that there is a Report Stage on every Bill. It would have been my clear intention, if my amendment had been accepted, to propose an amendment on Report Stage for the allocation of that sum of money to the deserving cause of free legal aid, as has been achieved in a somewhat circuitous route by the Labour Party. A maximum of £440,000, according to the Minister's estimate, was left for the two items mentioned, the courts and legal aid services.
The Minister said he could not be sure how much would be necessary to pay for a Children's Court. The estimated figure is £750,000. What will happen if that figure becomes £850,000. £900,000 or £1 million? Will there be less money available for legal aid services, or will public funds be used to finance it? In other words, is this a binding commitment irrespective of the cost of the new Children's Court, or is it a well-directed good intention of what we hope to do if there is money left over? We have no specific information on that.
The most authoritative statement we had from the Minister was that we could not be sure how much the Children's Court would cost and, therefore, we do not know how much would be left over. Suppose the £750,000 estimate turns out to be more or less correct and there is £440,000 left, the effect of the agreement the Labour Party have achieved, for which they have taken some credit, will be to transfer funds for the renovation of courts and similar projects into the provision of law centres. That sounds like a very good idea, but we would do well to remember who passes through the courts of this city in the greatest numbers. It is the poor, the wretched and the marginalised who pass through the courts of this city. By and large the people who go through the courts in this city are the poor, marginalised outsiders of our society, the victims of our society. Therefore, the consequence of this provision will be to transfer funds from one poor section in society and to give it to another group. What we are effectively doing by this agreement is transferring funds which would have benefited one section of the poor in our society in order to benefit another section of the poor and leave untouched that sum of money which was allocated to the self-esteem of the wealthy.
Therefore, I feel that my amendment addresses the central problem of this Bill, which is its distorted priorities. We could still remove this £600,000, make provision for some renovation of the courts and then provide extra funds for that most necessary of functions, the provision of legal aid in civil cases. As far as I am concerned, while this agreement is a step forward it is effectively a transfer of funds for one good cause to another good cause and leaves the objectionable case untouched in any way. Therefore, I still insist on my amendment.
(Limerick East): Senator Fitzsimons asked a specific question. He inquired if the State pays a rental on the part of the King's Inns building occupied by the State. It does not. Historically the position is that work originally began in King's Inns in 1795. An official of the society was asked to draw up plans but later James Gandon and Francis Johnson took over the task of designing a new building. In 1813 legislation was enacted to enable the Benchers of the King's Inns to transfer to the State the plot of land on which the Registry of Deeds now stands. As a result of that, the State constructed and owns about two-thirds of the building which is generally described as the King's Inns.
I appreciate what several Labour Senators have said: certainly I have no difficulty in accepting the concept contained in their remarks. Senator O'Mahony talked about an injection of Labour Party philosophy. I moved an amendment in the Dáil to allow for the spending of this money on civil legal aid. Certainly the injection of philosophy would have no side-effects on me. I appreciate it and I have no problem there.
On the question which Senator Ryan is still pushing the Bill states:
the cost of the provision of court rooms and ancillary accommodation and services in the Dublin Metropolitan District for use for the purposes of the Children's Court of the District Court,...
That is a specific commitment and it has to be funded out of the funds of suitors. Subsection (2) (d) (ii) of section 3 states:
any of the cost that would, apart from this subsection, fall to be defrayed by the State of the provision, extension, repair and maintenance of such other buildings, and the provision of such services, for use for the purposes of or in relation to the courts as the Minister for Justice may determine.
There is a similar provision for legal aid and for civil legal aid, as the Minister for Justice may determine. The position is that the residue at the moment, with all commitments fulfilled, would stand at £439,205, on figures available to me from 31 May 1984 but the interest is accumulating at the rate of about £5,000 per week. Obviously while some bodies like Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann will want to draw on their money immediately, other allocations will have to wait. For example, the Arts Council have various talks with local bodies before the money is actually designated to projects all around the country so that interest will be accruing there. I do not think my Department or the Office of Public Works will be in a position to go to tender on a Children's Court until very late in the year or early next year, so that the provision for the Children's Court will remain in the fund and interest will be accruing.
I feel very confident, without inhibiting the completion of the Children's Court or without depriving it of funds in any way, that a commitment of £400,000 for civil legal aid is a commitment which I can give to the House. The commitment to provide money for legal aid is in the Bill already and what is at issue at present is the specific amount. The residue is more than £400,000 at the moment and the money is accruing weekly. I think there is money to fulfil all commitments made now.
I would like if there was some money left for the repair of courts in various parts of the country. People looking casually at the Bill would imagine that most of the money is being spent in Dublin. That is true of the major items but I understand from the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach that quite an amount of the money being allocated to the Arts Council will be spread throughout the country as a whole outside of the greater Dublin area.
With the provision of legal aid Senators should not think exclusively in terms of Coolock and Tallaght in Dublin. There are other places. There is a world beyond Newlands Cross which people should remember. Subsection (2) (d) (ii) would await a decision of the Government to enable a Minister for Justice to fund repairs in district courts because it is the function of local authorities now to repair district court buildings. I would be happy if some money were available from the residue to repair District Court buildings if the Government decided it was appropriate that central funds should be allocated to such buildings.
In response to what Senator Brendan Ryan has been getting around to, the only net difference now as a result of the commitment I am making to legal aid here and in specifying the amount is that the freedom which I enjoyed up to now to decide how much I would give to District Court buildings as against legal aid has been reduced somewhat. I presume and I hope that there will be some residue available for the repair of court buildings down the country also.
There is a magnificant clarity coming into the numbers in this game that was not apparent in the Dáil. I think the Seanad has fulfilled some function. Since the Minister has now done his calculations about interest and so on, can he give us some idea of the sum that he envisages will be left for the provision of repairs to the courts? As I said, it is those at the bottom of society who, unfortunately, tend to be the most frequent attenders at court. That is the system of justice we have in this country. How much is going to be left? I am intrigued at the fact that in the Dáil, and indeed last week, the Minister was unable to be too specific about these things. Obviously some new computer was installed in the Department of Justice in the last week or so and that which was confused a week ago is now precise. Perhaps we can have a little bit more precision before we pass on.
(Limerick East): As the Senator is aware, if I am asked a specific question I always give a specific answer.
Not necessarily asked a specific question.
(Limerick East): The information which I have supplied here today was supplied in a general way to the Senators the last day. It was not difficult to do the calculations and subtract them from the total amount. It was a simple enough sum, even for a member of the engineering profession. What the illustrious Member of the House and a member of the engineering profession is now asking me to do is to get involved in creative accounting and to try to calculate when each individual group — over which I have little enough control — will actually withdraw the amount and to make a stab at calculating what the residual amount will be and what interest will accure. I am not prepared to do that. I am saying to the House that the specific commitments which I have now made — including the £400,000 for legal aid — will, I believe, still allow a residue. I am not prepared to quantify how much that residue will be but I hope it can be allocated to the repair of court buildings.
Will the Minister say if it will be greater or less that £100,000?
(Limerick East): All I can say at this stage is that I am surprised at the Senator.
The Minister should never be surprised at me.
I think the amendment should not be accepted for the reasons which I went into on Second Stage. I do not think there is any great need to elaborate further on my reasons. I think also that a Fine Gael point of view, as distinct from a ministerial point of view, should be brought to bear on some of the points that were dealt with today.
One of the points made by Senator Brendan Ryan in moving the amendment today was that the Society of King's Inns were in some way preventing people from studying there. As far as I know there is no screening process, no individual who is educationally qualified to study at King's Inns has been refused entry on the basis of his political, religious or other beliefs. If Senator Brendan Ryan is aware of any individual case he should bring it to my attention and I will pursue it because it is very important that such a case be brought to our attention. If there is no such case Senator Brendan Ryan should not indicate that that kind of screening process exists, because it does not.
One comment of Senator O'Mahony's today was a very serious reflection on public life as it exists in the country and in the Houses of the Oireachtas. As a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas I could not allow it to remain uncontradicted on the record of the House. If I am incorrect in my summary perhaps Senator O'Mahony will correct me. He indicated that the Houses of the Oireachtas act for the benefit of the privileged members of the community. I do not think that is right. If there has been any benefit of representative democracy it is that the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas act by and large to reduce the adverse effects of the existence of a particular economic structure and to even out of the benefit of the less privileged members of society the adverse effects of the unbridled operation of a system of capitalism. That has happened. He may well argue that they do not go far enough and I will not take issue with anybody who expresses that view, but to suggest or to put on the record of this House that the Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas act on behalf of the privileged members of the community is flying in the face of reality when so much of the resources of the country are transferred from the privileged to the less privileged by actions of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I am not claiming that they are right. Senators may not agree with it but that does not necessarily make it wrong.
Facts do not agree with it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator O'Leary to continue without interruption.
I do not think we should allow that to be uncontradicted on the record of the House.
It is a gloss.
A gloss on what? I do not understand.
A gloss on the reproduction of privilege.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Through the Chair, Senator O'Leary. You may not have a chat with somebody behind you when I am sitting here.
May the person behind have a chat with me? It appears that you seem reluctant to call anyone else to order except myself. It is not up to me to contradict any Member of the Labour Party who says that the Bill now reflects their priorities more adequately.
In so far as the provision of legal aid in civil cases is concerned, it reflects the priorities of the party of which I am a member and that is why I support it.
We have been talking about civil legal aid and we indicated the desirability of putting public funds into this area. It is also probably true that there is another means by which we can get effective legal programmes to people at a price they can afford, that is to deregulate the legal profession and to see to it that they have to enter into competition in the future for business. Competition of course would involve competition in fees as well. Probably the time has come to supplement the present civil legal aid programme which operates in a period of economic stringency and, therefore, presumably over the next few years will not be as comprehensive as we would like to see it. We should supplement it by having a look at how both barristers and solicitors operate cartels in their own interests in the area of fees and so on.
I would also favour their right to advertise as part of this competitive concept of how people would have access to the law through competitive legal structures. Then we would sort out the whole question of what the benchers do when they are in the King's Inns and how they control everything to do with access to the law, in their interest. If Senator O'Leary is keen on the notion of competition he should extend that competition to his own profession and that of solicitors.
The suggestion that the Oireachtas act to modify the worst elements of capitalism in the interests of the majority who are not privileged is patent nonsense. The Oireachtas creates capitalism, sustains it and introduces legislation day after day, week after week, year after year to ensure that that system which discriminates against our people is sustained and improved and continues in the interests of those people. I do not think this is the right time to go into a long explanation of why that is. It is a democratic Oireachtas and I have no complaints against Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. They are fulfilling their mandate in acting in the interests of those they represent but to say that in some sense this Oireachtas is designed to modify the worst effects of the system is to turn the thing on its head. The Oireachtas through legislation creates this system, sustains it and opposes anybody who is seriously concerned with transforming what is an unequal and unfair economic system into one which is based on justice and moral principles.
Senator O'Leary was very eloquent on the open door policy of the King's Inns. It has been said and it is almost a clíche at this stage that the doors of the Shelbourne Hotel are also open to anybody who can afford to pay there. He said King's Inns do not operate a screening system. There is no need to do so because the economic system which most barristers support and subscribe to does the screening for them. As 25 per cent of the population leave school at or before the age of 15 they will never trouble the doors of the King's Inns. The screening is done for all third level institutions in favour of the privileged by an economic system which leaves half our population out of school before they can even think of third level education. I fully support what Senator O'Mahony said, that since most members of the legal profession, be they barristers or solicitors, publicly and privately subscribe to the private enterprise market economy, the least they could do would be to sell their services within the private enterprise market economy system on the basis of competition and advertising and not in the sort of cartel that they operate. The Minister should, as a matter of urgency, instigate the necessary legislation to bring about free competition in those two most privileged and cossetted professions.
We have had a fair debate on this. I did not speak on Second Stage of the Bill. Having listened to all the arguments it is time we faced reality. So far we have not had a clear indication from Senator Ryan as to whether he will press his amendment.
The Labour Party Members spoke on two areas of concern in the Bill on Second Stage, law centres and allocating money to the King's Inns. After the Second Stage debate, Labour Party Senators got together to consider the situation. In view of the fact — and I would like to emphasise this — that sufficient attention had not been paid in the Dáil to the £600,000 for the King's Inns, it seems that it was going to be more difficult to deal with that problem than with the law centres. Having regard to precedent, and after discussions with the Tánaiste, our leader, the reality is that we were not going to make much progress on this. This is an area about which the Labour Party are particularly concerned, and in all the circumstances, having regard to the precedent and the Minister's Second Stage reply, I cannot see where we can go at this stage. We must accept what the Minister said, and Senator Ryan's amendment could be withdrawn.
I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill."
Senators
Vótáil.
Will those Senators who are demanding a division please rise?
Senators B. Ryan and Ross rose.
Question put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
In accordance with Standing Order No. 53 the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the proceedings of the Seanad.
Tairgim leasú a 2:
In page 3, subsection (2) (c), line 13, to delete "£300,000" and substitute "£500,000".
Iarraim ar an Aire glacadh le £500,000 a thabhairt do Chomhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann in áit £300,000 atá sa Bhille faoi láthair. Creidim go láidir go bhfuil liúntas den méid seo tuillte ag an eagraíocht de bharr an tsaothair mhóir atá á dhéanamh acu ar son ár gcultúir dhúchais agus ar son an Ghaelachais i gcoitinne.
When speaking on the Second Stage I intimated my intention to table an amendment requesting an increase in the allocation proposed in the Bill to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann from £300,000 to £500,000. In moving the amendment I sincerely believe that the organisation are fully entitled to such an allocation and I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment accordingly. I outlined the reasons why such an allocation should be given to the Comhaltas and I do not propose to argue from figures again. In 1978 the Comhaltas received an annual grant of £100,000 from the Department of the Gaeltacht; in 1981 that was increased to £125,000; in 1982 there was a decrease to £110,000 and in 1983 and 1984 the figure remained at that amount.
It matters little whether we call a portion of that grant a capital or an annual grant. What matters to Comhaltas and what has severely affected their financial position is that in 1978 the organisation received £100,000 and in 1984, six years later, they received only £110,000. The annual grant from Roinn na Gaeltachta has remained more or less static in that period. This is a grave disappointment to the Comhaltas, particularly when we are aware that other such organisations have received annual grants. The puzzling point is that while other organisations have been given increases, proportionate to inflation or otherwise, the position of the Comhaltas has been as I have outlined.
The Minister rightly has taken credit for increasing the grant provided for in the Bill from the original £200,000 to £300,000, but in the original Bill there was no mention of an allocation to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. That is significant and it has not been mentioned so far in the debate. In the Bill brought before the House in 1981 there was no reference to any allocation to the Comhaltas. That should be remembered because it is significant.
I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but I should like to deal with a few misunderstandings which have arisen on the Bill. The present financial position of the Comhaltas needs to be explained. It has been said that it is due to decisions made at the top. I reject that totally and categorically. There are no bad decisions, or good decisions, made at the top in Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann: all decisions are made democratically, as democratically as in any other body in the country. I can verify that and I will explain it very briefly. There is a management committee of which I am a member. The committee discuss any proposed changes or advances and submit their proposals to the Ard Comhairle of An Comhaltas which are representative of the four provinces and of Britain. Delegates from the four provinces attend the ard comhairle meetings when they are called, which is frequently. Every decision made is arrived at after full discussion by the members and a full and democratic debate. So there are no decisions, good or bad, made at the top in Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann; they are made by the organisation and not by any individual or any small group.
There are other misunderstandings. The impression has been created that the Comhaltas have done nothing themselves to provide funds for the organisation. That is not so. Comhaltas, through their own activities, as I explained the last day, such as sending tours abroad, conducting raffles, concerts and other activities and levying a certain amount on their members, have provided £240,000 to their general fund. That is the truth. These figures appeared in the certified audited accounts passed by congress last May. The Comhaltas annual congress is held on the first weekend of May and last May that position was before the organisation. It is literally true. It is not fair to say that the organisation have not done anything worth while to provide their own funds to help themselves. In fact, in that audit report to the annual congress an item shows £67,000 of personal loans from our own members. I am aware of these things and I do not speak lightly about this but, as a trustee of the organisation I speak with some concern and a sense of responsibility in everything I am saying. I do not wish to say anything that might offend anybody but I want to put the truth on record in this debate. It is important that it be made known that the organisation provided £240,000 from their own efforts to their own funding.
I should like to remind the House, and the Minister, that an allocation of £300,000, or £500,000, to Comhaltas will not solve their financial problems. The only way this can be done is to have a reassessment of the needs of the organisation and provide adequate State funding annually to enable them to carry out their expanding and substantial work programme. Whether that funding comes from Roinn na Gaeltachta, the Arts Council, or elsewhere is immaterial. What matters is that the funding be adequate and equitable in the light of our present needs and of the work the organisation is doing for the preservation and restoration of our native culture. I say with pride that Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann are doing a very important job to save and hold our national fabric together, to preserve and promote the fundamental basic elements of our nationhood. It is because of that that I do not think the efforts of the organisation, or the value of it can be measured in matters of money or financial considerations.
Last October Seanad Éireann was convened specially for a two-day debate on Plean Gníomhaíochta don Ghaeilge as outlined by Bord na Gaeilge. That was a very interesting and important debate. In fact, it was unique that Seanad Éireann was summoned for such a purpose because it conveyed to the public that the Oireachtas was responsible and interested in the promotion and fosterage of our native culture of which the language is the most central element. The debate was good, and constructive. Most Senators contributed very satisfactorily and expressed grave concern in regard to the need for a solution to this important problem. The reason I mention that is because the work of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann is inseparably associated with the promotion of the language and the work of Bord na Gaeilge, the work of Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge and of Conradh na Gaeilge or any other organisation working for the promotion of the language and seeking a solution to our cultural problems.
Therefore, if we are really appreciative of that as Members of this House we should support their efforts in carrying out their duties and in carrying out the very auspicious and ambitious work plan they have before them. Nobody doubts that the organisation is doing a very good job. I am sure most Senators watched on television the welcome given to President Reagan in Ballyporeen not so long ago and I am sure Senators were very pleased with the exhibition and demonstration of our national culture they saw. When the President attended a function in Dublin Castle it was a family who are very efficient exponents of our native music, song and dance who were invited to entertain him. For those reasons alone my amendment should get sympathy and support.
I appeal to the Minister to look again at the possibility of finding some source from which he can get aid for us. He should give recognition to my amendment and accept it. We are all aware that when the allocations named in the Bill are dealt with there will be a residue of £1.19 million. The Minister referred to the possibility of other allocations from that. Somewhere there he should find it within his capability to allocate the £200,000 our amendment is seeking for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the position and try to find within that source a means by which he can accede to our request.
This is an amendment with which I have a lot of moral sympathy. I know of Senator de Brún's commitment to this organisation and I share many of the sentiments he has expressed. When Senator de Brún suggested last week that he might have an amendment to this section, I warned that it would be dipping into the residue in the funds. The Minister encountered difficulties in trying to be as specific as requested about how he would use this residue. The commitment of my party, on a priority basis alone, is that money should be available for the civil legal aid system. If we follow this amendment through we will be taking a further £200,000 out of that fund. Much as I would admire all the sentiments expressed by Senator de Brún, I find myself unable to support the amendment for that specific reason.
I again would draw attention of the House to my request to the Minister last week. There is an allocation available to the Taoiseach under section 2 (a) of the Bill. In view of the difficulties which Comhaltas have encountered, I asked that a special request be sent to him to see if it would be at all possible to increase that sum or allocate a special sum out of that subhead towards Comhaltas. They are in a tremendously difficult financial situation. I thank the Minister for his commitment, which is on the record of the House, and I hope he will pursue it with the Taoiseach. I certainly will do so and I hope that the Taoiseach, having listened to the views expressed in this House on the allocation of Comhaltas, will see fit to make an additional sum available to this cultural and artistic organisation of which we are all very proud. I look forward to further discussions we will have with the Taoiseach and to the advice he will give to the Arts Council.
I agree with Senator de Brún that the previous Funds of Suitors Bill had no allocation whatsoever for Comhaltas. It dealt only with the King's Inns building which was then in crisis. A commitment was given by Deputy Haughey in 1982 that a sum of money would be made available from this fund. That commitment is now being honoured by the Government. Unfortunately, because of the various elections which have taken place this promise has not yet come to fruition. That promise was for £200,000 and the Government and the Minister in the Dáil have gone further and increased the figure from £200,000 to £300,000. That would adequately meet the commitment that was previously given and allow for any inflation that might have occurred in the meantime.
Comhaltas have incurred debts which have caused them tremendous hardship. They have used some public finance institutions which have pressured them about interest payments. They borrowed in all good faith because they were made a promise by a party leader who felt he was in a position to deliver. Due to this dilemma their economic affairs have got out of hand.
Last week the Minister suggested that Comhaltas were a widely respected organisation and that they should make an effort to get contributions from their members. Everybody in this House knows, and the Minister is aware, that Comhaltas have done that. They have sent out an appeal to every householder through An Post who are delivering post at a relatively commercial rate. It is only right that if people feel as strongly about the language and our culture and heritage as we do, they would also be given an opportunity to subscribe to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. I hope that the response from the public will be beneficial to Comhaltas and to the Irish language and culture.
Since the previous debate on this Bill I and Senator de Brún visited the premises of Comhaltas in Monkstown. It would be an understatement to say that I was impressed with it. I am very proud of the fact that a voluntary organisation could produce what they have managed to produce, albeit that they are in debt as a result of it. It behoves every Member of this House and of the other House to avail of the opportunity to visit the Cultúrlann. They would have a completely different attitude towards Comhaltas and what they are doing. There may be misconceptions in some people's minds as to what this voluntary organisation are doing. People should familiarise themselves with what exactly they are doing. I was tremendously proud of what I saw and very impressed. I do not think that the Oireachtas can at any time in the future give them too much money for what they are doing. I do not think any other organisation or any State agency could take on as effectively what they are managing to produce out there. They have accommodation for tutors, adjudicators, people involved in competitions and in classes. It is amazing what they have managed to do through various voluntary collection agencies throughout the country.
I would refer to the Minister's own statement in previous contributions both on Second Stage and on an earlier amendment that he presumed Comhaltas would be drawing down on this fund immediately. I want to confirm to the Minister that it is imperative. I would ask Senator de Brún to consider that if his amendment were to be successful today there would be a delay until at least the end of October which would cost Comhaltas about £1,000 a week. I want to assure the Minister that they will be calling down this fund immediately and I would ask him to communicate that fact to Roinn na Gaeltachta.
The wording of the Bill is peculiar. It states that the sum shall be not more than £300,000. Technically we could give them £5 and it would comply with the Bill. I presume that the figure is £300,000. I would prefer to see a Bill more positively worded and I would respectfully suggest that the parliamentary draftsman would look at the terminology used in 1984. Section 3 (2) (c) States:
not more than £300,000 may, on the application of the Minister for the Gaeltacht, be applied in or towards the defrayal of the cost of the extension, completed in the year 1983, of the premises of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann at Monkstown in the county of Dublin known as Cultúrlann na hÉireann,
If we read that literally we could give them £5 and say it is in compliance with the Bill. I know from what the Minister has said today that he intends to give them £300,000 and I hope that he will request the Minister for the Gaeltacht to make that fund available as quickly as possible. In the light of that I think the amendment is unwise. It would delay it further and because it might dip into the funds for the other commitments the Minister has given I certainly could not support it, although in every other way, apart from voting, I would support the contention that Comhaltas are entitled to every penny that we could possibly give them from any source.
I would ask the Minister for the Gaeltacht to advise the officers in the Department that this Bill does not tie any strings to the payment of this money. It is to be applied in or towards the defrayal of the cost of the extension. I am reliably informed now that on 26 June a written request issued from the Department of the Gaeltacht asking them to produce audited accounts fairly quickly. Of course they produce audited accounts annually but it does not make sense to produce audited accounts at this juncture when it is common knowledge that anything we give will be only a pittance in comparison to whatever amount they have spent. Certainly any additional request that we make of them and which would have financial implications would be seen by Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas as unreasonable. To make a prerequisite of the payment of this £300,000 the production at short notice of half-yearly accounts is not reasonable. I would ask the Minister to convey to his colleague the Minister for the Gaeltacht the fact that this House is placing no strings on payment. I wonder who instructed the officals of any Department to seek other strings not required. Another condition I do not accept is their requiring to know what comprehensive plans Comhaltas have for clearing off the balance of their debts. Of course they are undertaking a national campaign to get money from all sorts of sources to help them. But to predict how successful that campaign will be before they receive this subvention is being somewhat unreasonable. I want to place on the record that the two provisions Roinn na Gaeltachta are seeking before this money is paid are not included in the Bill. I do not want it to be held against them in the future, that, as the Minister said, this organisation would be drawing on the Funds of Suitors Bill at a very early date. Indeed the sooner this occurs the better because every week that passes costs them £1,000 or £1,100 in interest.
We must ensure that Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann survive. We owe it to our culture, heritage that this organisation survive in a healthy state. The only way we can do so is to ensure that of the funding given them through the Arts Council a specific amount will be indexed-linked. Otherwise they will not be able to survive.
I am glad the Minister in his introductory remarks suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for Comhaltas Ceoltoírí Éireann, in consultation with Roinn na Gaeltachta and the Arts Council, to talk seriously before the 1985 budget figures are agreed so that they can advance a proper and adequate case for future funding, placing them on a sound financial footing, so continuing the work we all want to see continued. They should not have to compete with minor cultural organisations, however worthy they may be. They do not want to be placed in the position of competing with ballet, the theatre, opera or anything else, all of which are worthy in their own right. None of us should have to go out with a begging bowl to get people to subscribe to our traditional culture which we all love and cherish and which Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann are preserving continuously on a very limited amount of money. Many of its members work voluntarily throughout this country and elsewhere where there are branches to stimulate an interest in our culture.
I cannot support this amendment as drafted but I have made the best possible case for the money being released to them as soon as possible, with no strings attached. We should have a future commitment under the other subheads of the Department of Finance vote — whether it be through the Arts Council or Roinn na Gaeltachta — so that this cultural organisation be properly looked after.
I would not question the sincerity of any Member of this House who would speak in glowing terms of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann as have so many Members and indeed the Minister also. The question we should ask ourselves today is: what amount of money have Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann contributed in real terms to our economy since the foundation of the State? We must face facts. Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann have contributed far in excess of any other voluntary organisation, more in real money terms, to our economy than has any other organisation. Their functions are attended by 750,000 people annually. I will not go into detail again about their achievements — I mentioned some of them. Their branches established here, those in England, Scotland, Wales, America, indeed throughout the world, have secured world wide attention and appreciation for our culture which but for them could possibly have died.
As Senator de Brún said, when a two-day debate took place in this House on our national language, great importance was placed on it. I read a book on the Irish language, published over 50 years ago, at a time when a renewed effort was being made to have Ireland an Irish speaking nation. The first sentence of it said that, despite all the sincere and brave efforts of so many people over the past 50 years, people were frustrated that so little progress had been made. Now, 50 years later we find that the situation has changed little, if at all.
We have all felt despondency at some stage with regard to the progress or lack of it made with regard to various aspects of our culture. At times our games appeared to sink low, as did our language, our music and dancing. Indeed in my lifetime these seemed to have been pushed very much into the background. I am of the firm belief that our culture is like the three leafed shamrock; there is our music and dance, our language and our games. They must all be preserved and promoted with the same degree of enthusiasm, and simultaneously at that. When Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann took the decision to provide a cultural centre through which to promote their ideas, aims and objectives it was a very wise and necessary one. What have we done for that organisation considering all they have done for us as a nation?
As Senator de Brún outlined, £100,000 was granted in 1978 from Roinn na Gaeltachta, yet we find outselves in 1983 and 1984 with grants of £110,000. In real money terms and in line with inflation, we are now giving something over 50 per cent of the grant that was given to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann in 1978 when we should be bending over backwards trying to help them to solve their financial difficulties.
Last week I mentioned the part that Comhaltas have played in fostering harmony and peace in Northern Ireland. It is on record that musicians from Sandy Row and the Falls Road play in groups together and form a mutual bond. That was what we sought when the New Ireland Forum sat down to discuss what could be achieved. We have a duty to provide funds not alone to preserve but to propagate everything Comhaltas stand for, everything for which they were founded and everything for which their members give voluntarily of their time and money to preserve for love of country and of the Irish people. All that is at stake and here we have the opportunity to do something positive — not enough, maybe not half enough — by the extra allocation which Senator de Brún and I and others are proposing of an extra £200,000 for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. I hope that the Members of this House will listen very carefully to what we have to say today and that in six months, 12 months, two years they will not be regretting that they did not take action when they had the opportunity to do so. If we respond and give the example to the rest of the country then the country will row in behind us and in the coming six months the financial problems of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann will be solved.
We must remember that Comhaltas were founded as a voluntary organisation which expanded and developed far beyond the bounds of the imagination of their founders one of whom, the late Dr. Brian Galligan, was a great friend of mine. Now the organisation have grown so great that many of us take them for granted. We talk of promotions, tours and concerts. I know the cost of these. I know what it costs to send musicians abroad. We should be with Comhaltas in every step they take, ensuring that they have the funds to promote more concerts abroad so that we will get the return in an influx of visitors to this country. What have we to offer to people coming from abroad? Certainly not the price of drink, cigarettes, hotels, food or petrol. We have our countryside, our scenery, our music, language and games and those are what we should be thinking of here today.
(Limerick East): First of all, I would like to re-echo what many Members of the House have said about the great work done by Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. There is no doubt that their work has encouraged and revitalised the music which is such an important strand in our culture, not just something to be wheeled out with the shillelaghs and the leprechauns for the benefit of tourists but something living and vibrant which provides joy and pleasure for many people in our country. That is why it is important to repeat that when this Bill becomes law Oireachtas Éireann will have voted in 1984 a sum of £473,900 to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann from all sources. That is made up of £110,000 from the Department of the Gaeltacht, approximately £59,000 from the Arts Council, over £4,000 from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the amount that concerns us here, which is the amount I am proposing of £300,000 from the funds of suitors in this Bill. To evaluate whether that amount is adequate or fulfils adequately the commitment made by Deputy Haughey's last Government, it is necessary to consider a few facts.
Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann were given a commitment before the summer of 1982 that a sum of £200,000 would be provided from the funds of suitors. They claim that the money did not materialise, and of course it did not. However, they go on to claim now that the money I am proposing here is inadequate and that somehow or other the commitment of £200,000 has not only grown to beyond the £300,000 but is now somewhere in the region of half a million pounds. Comhaltas got a loan from the ICC of £200,000 in October 1982. Naturally they had to pay some interest on that, but the Comhaltas audited accounts for the year ending 31 December 1983 show that the ICC are owed £235,000. If one adds, for example, interest at 16 per cent to that for the half year up to 30 June, last week, the amount due would be £253,000. Even if we are to say that they did not fulfil all their interest commitments — I am not sure whether they did and that interest on interest would not be mounting up — and even if we were to allow another £10,000 and bring it to over £260,000, the sum I am proposing, the sum in the Bill, is still approximately £40,000 better in real money terms than the sum committed orginally.
Naturally, any group benefiting from moneys voted by the Oireachtas will seek to maximise the benefit. We have seen examples here and in the other House where Deputies and Senators advocated an increase in an area of expenditure which appealed to themselves, and that has happened in the case of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. I have here a letter to me dated 15 July 1983 and signed by Labhrás Ó Murchú, Ard Stiúrthóir. After extolling the virtues of Comhaltas and outlining in detail the work they are engaged in both at home and abroad he says: "We would require a minimum of £400,000 to correct our financial difficulty." A subsequent letter dated 3 October 1983, again signed by the Ard Stiúrthóir, Labhrás Ó Murchú states: "Our present position is that if we are to avoid a financial catastrophe we will require a grant in the region of £400,000." Taking this into account and working on the basis that people normally ask for more than they expect to get in matters such as this, the Bill which was published proposed a sum of £250,000. On the basis of representations made to me by people both inside and outside the Houses of the Oireachtas this was increased by amendment to £300,000. Then I got letters from Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann saying that the sum they needed was £500,000. On what basis a requirement of £400,000 last summer and again last autumn could suddently have become £500,000 when the Bill was published I am at a loss to establish. Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann need a lot of money, they need as much as they can get. The money that is being proposed in the Bill is more in real money terms than the commitment given in 1982. It is more than the outstanding demands on Comhaltas as a result of a loan raised from ICC together with the interest payable on that loan as a result of the commitment in 1982. Taking into account that in 1984 Comhaltas will get a sum of £473,900 from public funds and taking into account the fact that in two letters to me prior to the publication of the Bill their demand was for £400,000 not £500,000, I think what I am providing is a generous contribution.
I wish Comhaltas very well in their fund-raising. I hope their advertisements will meet with a very good response and that people who express a great interest in Irish music and culture will contribute. They talk about the year the music died. If the music dies in 1984 it will not be the fault of this Government because the Government are providing £300,000, and in toto, are providing £473,900. As I said on Second Stage I will take up the suggestion made by Senator Ferris. I will communicate to the Taoiseach the concern expressed by the Seanad. I do not hold out any great hope but I will ask if there is any posibility of a further allocation for Comhaltas being provided by way of this Bill from the £600,000 which is allocated to capital projects at the discretion of the Arts Council. I give the commitment to communicate the views of the Seanad but I cannot give any commitment that money will be forthcoming from that source.
Finally, if we accept this amendment there is only one place the £200,000 advocated for Comhaltas can now come from and that is from the £400,000 we decided to give to civil legal aid some time ago, and the residue is running very low. As Senator O'Leary said we have to make choices and I am not prepared to make that choice. The provisions in the Bill are balanced and very good and I would ask the Senator to withdraw his amendment.
I am very pleased to hear the Minister scotch any myth that might have been circulating as to the commitment of this Government to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. When he did his sums, and I have no doubt the Minister did his sums very accurately, the total amount voted to the Comhaltas was £473,900, no mean amount by any standard. It underscores the commitment of this Government to traditional music, to the living culture which we have, which we want to see continue, and to the fact that Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann are a group who have given enormous service and dedication to the preservation of our traditional music, language and culture in general. I, too, availed of the gracious invitation from Labhrás Ó Murchú to go out to Monkstown to see what all the fuss was about because while I knew of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann — it would be very difficult to be in Ireland and not to be aware of Comhaltas, so successful are they — I never had the opportunity or never had been so specifically encouraged to go out to Monkstown and see the Cultúrlann and partake in its festivities. I was most impressed by what I saw. They have a wonderful facility out there. All credit is due to them for their optimism and confidence in going ahead and providing this splendid building. I found the theatre to be a most tasteful building. It is completely woodlined, the floor is flagged and there is an open fire which is extremely welcoming on arrival. They made a point of serving tea and brown scones in the interval of the concert. It was a very nice touch to present traditional food like that to the people who were there. There was a delightful atmosphere. The concert was a lovely exposition of good dancing and music. I found the theatre somewhat stylised but that is a personal reaction. It went down extremely well with the audience there. I should like to have seen more people there. I cannot exactly calculate what the seating arrangement would facilitate but the theatre was about one-third full. In conversation with the stiúrthóir he intimated that there was a difficulty in promoting the Cultúrlann adequately, which is a pity. I hope that the debate that has surrounded this Funds of Suitors Bill will in itself act as a promotion and an encouragement to invite people to go out there and spend an evening participating in the entertainment. The majority of the audience there were tourists, mostly American. That is good. What was available in the Cultúrlann was the only specifically Irish entertainment available in Dublin during that week. Comhaltas are to be commended for ensuring that at Monkstown every evening there is available Irish traditional music and culture to native and tourist alike.
All those who spoke both for and against the amendment were loud in their praise of everything that Comhaltas are doing and will continue to do. However, facts must be faced. Comhaltas are in receipt of £174,000 of State aid this year — £59,900 from the Arts Council, £110,000 from Roinn na Gaeltachta and £4,000 from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Since 1978 Comhaltas have received almost £1 million in State aid, that is according to a recent reply to a Dáil parliamentary question by the Minister of State with responsibility for the Arts, Deputy Nealon. Comhaltas have also received an interest-free loan of £50,000 from the Arts Council. It is important to note that the repayment of this loan has been extended twice.
The Minister for the Gaeltacht in responding to Comhaltas representations indicated that £90,000 had been provided by Roinn na Gaeltachta towards the purchase of their original building in Monkstown. The subsequent building programme had been undertaken, according to the Minister, without prior Roinn na Gaeltachta sanction. This may account for the interest which is being shown in the Comhaltas by Roinn na Gaeltachta. The annual accounts presented by Comhaltas give cause for concern. Comhaltas management have been twice requested by Roinn na Gaeltachta to clarify the position with regard to a number of items in the accounts of 1982 and 1983. The latest information which I could obtain indicated that, to date, Comhaltas management have not satisfactorily responded to these requests. All of this is somewhat disturbing and needs fairly close examination. It is important that in the context of the funds of suitors Roinn na Gaeltachta should be fully satisfied with Comhaltas accounting procedures.
I am pleased to see Comhaltas figuring in the Funds of Suitors Bill. So many organisations could look enviously at the £300,000 that is being provided for Comhaltas in this Bill and ask: "Why not my organisation? We work hard. We promote what we are about. We collect. We have a large membership and we believe in what we are doing". It all boils down to choice and I am pleased that the Government have chosen to put Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann into this Bill. For me it boils down to the ultimate choice: do I want to see more money on top of the £300,000 in the Funds of Suitors Bill devoted to Comhaltas or do I want to see money going towards free civil legal aid? I have no difficulty in deciding where I want the extra funds to go. While I admire Comhaltas, while I want to see their work continue, while I pay tribute to everybody involved and to their vast membership, both in my own county and throughout the country, nevertheless they have been dealt with very generously and satisfactorily in this Bill.
Senator de Brún dealt with the works, aims and ideals of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and I do not intend to repeat any of those points. I will speak on this matter in a general way because the Senator has made a very moving case. Senator Ferris also spoke in glowing terms about Comhaltas but at the end he said he was not prepared to be supportive with his vote. This is an area where he could give the most tangible sign of where his heart really lies.
The preservation of our cultural heritage is of primary importance. Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann are fighting a losing battle. I could focus on many areas but I will just mention the area of the language which has already been referred to. I will mention the language because in my native county of Meath we had many pioneers who contributed in this area. We had Fr. Eugene O'Growney with his works and grammar. We had Brian O'Higgins, Brian na Banban from Kilskeer and the great Meath poet and hedge schoolmaster, Peadar Galligan from Kilbeg. I am pleased that his great-grandson works in this House.
This is a battlefield where the State should be the chief protagonist. The Minister asked on what basis could Comhaltas look for £200,000 more. The basis is that it is the responsibility of the State. It is our duty to preserve this rich culture for posterity even though cynical people — and the number is increasing daily — would ask what has posterity done for us? I am not cynical and therefore I welcome this contribution of £300,000 under the Bill. It is not ungenerous but because of the importance of the work of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann I urge the Minister to accept the amendment and increase the grant to £500,000.
Contributors to the debate seem to find it necessary to state how much they admire the work of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and I feel compelled to go along with that train of thought. I have had a long association with Comhaltas and with the promotion of Irish music and dancing. I am from County Clare which is generally regarded as the home of traditional music although some people may dispute this.
I have the greatest admiration for Senator de Brún, his commitment to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and for the promotional work he has done for Irish music, song and dance. The only occasions on which I have met Senator de Brún outside this building have been at Comhaltas functions. Despite the excellent case made by the Senator I am not prepared to support the amendment put forward by him for a number of reasons.
It has not been specified where this £200,000 would be transferred from within a budget of £2.8 million. If I was prepared to agree to this increase of £200,000, I would be tempted to take it from the fund that we discussed at length this afternoon. Senator de Brún and the people who support him did not feel that it should come from that source and that opportunity was let pass.
The next source is the source Senator Ferris mentioned. I would partially support his point of view. I would be prepared to support a recommendation that the Taoiseach would favourably consider that part of the £600,000 which has been allocated to capital projects in the arts field be devoted to Comhaltas not to the Monkstown part of Comhaltas but to projects throughout rural Ireland where the roots of traditional Irish music, song and dance exist.
Senator Fitzsimons said that this was a battlefield and that the State should become involved because it was its responsibility to do so. I respect his view but if the State takes responsibility in this area I guarantee that everything that Comhaltas have tried to promote over the past 20 years will be smothered. The involvement of the State would eliminate the spirit and commitment that inspired the revival of Irish music, song and dance.
In relation to the loan that is due by Comhaltas to the ICC, the maximum that it can be at present is about £260,000. The provision being made in this Bill will more than cover that. The Minister indicated that the sum was increased from £200,000 to £250,000 and now to £300,000. When the £200,000 was promised to Comhaltas it was on the basis that the capital cost of the project in Monkstown would be £400,000. I have been told that the capital cost of that project is at least double that figure. I am appalled at the ease with which we in the Houses of the Oireachtas — particularly in relation to the semi-State sector — will tolerate overspending, and overspending which is done in the knowledge that the taxpayer will be there to pick up the tab. We have tolerated that for far too long in the semi-State sector. I would not be consistent with the views I have expressed elsewhere if I were to agree to a voluntary organisation grossly overspending on the strength of commitments of a stated amount given by the Oireachtas and expecting the taxpayer to pay for it.
By increasing the State grant from £300,000 to £500,000 we are encouraging overdependence on the part of an undoubtedly splendid voluntary organisation on State resources and State funds. The strength and resources of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Eireann and the success of their efforts in promoting and developing Irish culture and everything that goes with it will depend on the extent to which voluntary effort and voluntary commitment are available to them. The more one moves towards dependence on State resources, the more voluntary effort and voluntary commitment decline in proportion. As far as I am concerned, it is not in the long-term interest of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann to over-depend on the State for the resources they require to achieve the task they set out to do 20 years ago.
I know Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann are engaged at the moment in a national fund-raising effort. I welcome that. It is through that source of finance that the resources they need can best be obtained. The extent to which those who pay lip service to the promotion of Irish culture, subscribe to that fund will be a measure of their commitment. I believe that fund will be substantially subscribed to. In the long-term interest of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, it is best that the funding should come from these.
Senators Ferris and Bulbulia were most impressed when they went on a tour of Monkstown. I was taken by Senator Bulbulia's description of the parana pine on the walls, the flag floors, the open hearth, the tea and the homemade scones. If Senators Ferris and Bulbulia ever have the opportunity to come to my town, I will bring them to a new Comhaltas building in that town, where what was described so splendidly and with such clarity by Senator Bulbulia is there, but on a minor scale. The difference will be that she visited a building in Monkstown, which she saw to be one-third full but when she visits Cois na hAbhna in the town of Ennis, it will be packed to the doors. That is the difference and that is part of the argument I am making.
I met Senator de Brún in Cois na hAbhna.
And the Senator will, again.
He knows it. A dozen Cois na hAbhnas throughout rural Ireland would be of far better advantage and benefit for the promotion of Irish culture song, dance and music than the building in Monkstown. In fact, long before the present theatre that cost so much in Monkstown was erected, there was already a headquarters for Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann in Monkstown. I was there and thought that would be adequate to fulfil its purpose as a headquarters. Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, with only the support of £9,000 of a county development fund grant, by voluntary subscriptions and voluntary effort, have erected a Comhaltas building in my county. It is a success and is making a substantial contribution to the aims of the organisation. I am sure it will be accepted that I have every right to disagree with the building of this very substantial structure in Monkstown when a dozen Cois na hAbhnas like that in Ennis could be erected where the roots of Irish culture are strong, where they can flourish and be encouraged.
I received a lot of documentation from Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann in connection with this matter. I am rather intrigued by the capacity in their correspondence to combine capital and current expenditure where that suits and to segregate them where it does not suit. There is little point in their saying that they got £125,000 in one year and that that figure dropped back to £105,000 the following year. By doing that, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann are combining capital and current expenditure. If we accepted that, then the figure which the Minister has mentioned here comes into perspective. In relation to 1984 and on the strength of this Bill we will combine current and capital expenditure and we will arrive at a figure of something like £475,000. That is a massive contribution.
I agree strongly with one point that has been made by Senator de Brún and perhaps by other Senators also. I genuinely do not believe Comhaltas are getting a fair proportion of the funds administered by the Arts Council. I would hope to see a better and more justifiable balance being achieved there. The £300,000 proposed in this measure is needed. It will more than cover the loans due to the ICC. Should we decide to amend the Bill today, as Senator Ferris pointed out, that would delay the payment of any sum to Comhaltas until the matter goes back to the Dáil, and that means next October. I do not know that we would be acting fairly there.
I will conclude by summarising what I have been saying. I do not believe that it is in the long-term interests of Comhaltas that they should become more and more dependent every year that passes on the State to underwrite and finance their operations. Their success to date — and it has been an excellent success — has been achieved on voluntary effort, by the support of people committed to what Comhaltas stand for. The day you begin to replace that kind of support and that commitment and that spirit by State funds, then you are definitely on the road that leads to the eventual elimination of the effort that is required to bring success in that field.
The Minister has been generous here. I support the Bill as it stands. I give conditional support to the suggestion of Senator Ferris that the Taoiseach would look favourably at giving some finance to Comhaltas from the £600,000 for capital projects in the arts field, but I would add to that the rider or condition that any moneys allocated from that source should go towards financing and supporting additional Cois na hAbhnas.
Ní lia tír ná grás agus mar sin ní hionadh é go mbeadh malairt tuairimí ag daoine ag plé ceisteanna mar seo. Sin mar atá sé inniu agus is maith an rud é sin, b'fhéidir, ar bhealach amháin.
There are a few points to which I want to refer very seriously. When I spoke last week and today I did not refer in any way to what was offered by any administration. I wish to keep political overtones out of this debate. I did not refer to what was done by the previous administration or the present administration. I kept to the merits or demerits of my point of view and my contention. I want to make that quite clear.
The Minister repeated that £473,900 would accrue to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann in this current year from the State. That is academically correct. He itemised that previously, and it was itemised here again today by other people. I want to put this in perspective. The £57,900 allocated to Comhaltas from the Arts Council is not really an allocation to Comhaltas. It is an allocation to provide for a national entertainment scheme that even crosses the Border into the Six Counties, an allocation for an entertainment project sponsored by Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann initially in co-operation with Bord Fáilte to provide entertainment for our own people and particularly for visitors from abroad during the summer.
That scheme is now in progress and the administration of that scheme costs Comhaltas a great deal of money. It has to be administered from head office in Monkstown. The seisiún group is made up of eight performers and a producer. These people have to be transported to a catchment area adjacent to the centre of entertainment, be it an hotel, or a teach ceoil, or whatever else, but mostly hotels. This scheme is in the little booklet I had here the other day, "Ireland in Musical Mood". There is a full calendar of Comhaltas events in that booklet.
The allocation of £57,900 goes directly towards providing for the expenses of those people. They have to be brought to the hotels. They have to be brought home. They have to sacrifice their time. It is not accruing to Comhaltas. It is of no value to Comhaltas financially. It just passes through their hands as will the £300,000 or the £500,000, whichever it may be, that will accrue from the funds of suitors allocation. It will merely pass through our hands to pay for the loan we were lucky enough to get, in fairness to and to the credit of the Department of the Gaeltacht on foot of the promise given that the momey would be forthcoming and that the ICC therefore would have their grant or loan duly paid back. That is the position in regard to that £57,900. It is not a direct grant to Comhaltas.
Comhaltas are not by any means getting their fair allocation from the Arts Council. The Arts Council get a State grant of £5½ million per year for culture and the arts. The allocation which we receive — £57,900 — which is much talked about in this House is only 2 per cent of their grant. Two per cent to a nationwide movement which has branches abroad: 40 in Britian, 25 in the US, and branches also in Europe. All we are getting from that grant is 2 per cent. Will any Senator or any Minister deny that that is far too low a proportion from the Arts Council to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann? I do not think it can be denied.
The very small sum of £4,000 which the Cultural Relations Committee in the Department of Foreign Affairs give to Comhaltas is just a token sum in small recognition of the immense importance of the tours which we sent abroad every year on these tours 25, 26 or 27 artistes are accorded great receptions in America. They are often feted by diplomatic representatives and by representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs abroad. I know that because I was on the first tour to the US in 1972. That is the position in regard to the allocation, and the £4,000 is merely a token recognition by the officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs of the immense value of the tours in attracting visitors and tourists to this country. It should not be £4,000. It should be several times £4,000.
The Minister also mentioned letters he got from An tÁrd Stiurthóir of Comhaltas, Labhras Ó Murchú. That was in 1983. The value of money in 1984 is not the same value as it was in 1983. I see the Minister is smiling. I suppose from his point of view he has reason to smile. I am speaking sincerely. I am speaking from my heart as one who has given a life long commitment to the promotion of all these matter we are talking about today. The sum of £200,000 has been mentioned as the initial or original figure proposed in 1982. That is correct. The figure then was £200,000. Surely the value of money early in 1982 was far different from the value of money today. If an organisation were worthy of £200,000 then, it should be worthy of much more now.
The presentation of accounts has been mentioned. I am a trustee of the organisation and this carries some responsibility and concern particularly when one realises that the organisation of which I as a trustee is in debt to the extent of £750,000. People have asked me if I feel concerned at that situation and I have said, no, I do not feel concerned. I believe that the vast majority of people are in support of our organisation and in support of what we are doing. Therefore, I am not concerned that I am one of three trustees of our organisation because I have faith in the Irish people. I also have faith in the Government of the country, and I mean all the Governments we have had.
We present accounts each year both to the Department of the Gaeltacht and to our annual congress. These accounts have been prepared and certified by auditors. They have also been accepted by the Department of the Gaeltacht for 14 years. If they have been right and proper for all that time, what is wrong with them now? Senator Bulbulia mentioned there was concern about the manner in which the accounts were presented. I do not think there should be any concern.
Will the Leader of the House inform us if it is proposed to adjourn for tea?
I have had consultations and it seems to be the view of the various groups that we should continue without rising because of the wish of the House to complete Items Nos. 2, 3 and 4 or at least the Second Stage of No. 4.
Senator Howard said the initial estimate of the cost of the Cultúrlann in Monkstown was £400,000. That is correct. It finished at £800,000. In my contribution on Second Stage I said that even in respect of a private house, the ultimate cost is always in excess of the initial estimate received from the contractor. When I built my house a number of years ago I did not build it within the initial estimated cost. To my knowledge, very few State building projects finish up within the initial estimate given to the various Departments. It is no great wonder, particularly in view of the time, of the fact that the money was not forthcoming and of the escalation of the cost of building materials that there should be a doubling of the costing of An Cultúrlann.
Senator Howard mentioned Cois na hAbhna. I have been to Cois na hAbhna on many occasions. I was there at the official opening and I shall go there again, le cúnamh Dé, if I live for much longer. Cois na hAbhna is a development of the concepts of Comhaltas, a development of our ambitions and our initial perspectives. In various areas throughout the country there should be such buildings but you must have a central administrative area and that is Cultúrlann in Monkstown. Croke Park is in Jones's Road. Teach Laighean is in the centre of Dublin. Nobody would suggest that Croke Park, Teach Laighean, the National Library or the College of Art should be moved down the country or should have been built in the country. I do not think there is anything wrong with having Cultúrlann na hÉireann in Dublin.
Cois na hAbhna is a subsidiary body of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. Cois na hAbhna had to be ratified and its deeds signed by the trustees of Comhaltas. That shows how well administered Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann is. We had to sign deeds for that building. There is a similar building being prepared for Wicklow, and another such building is in prospect for Mayo, but that is going outside the scope of this debate.
At a time like this when one comes up against difficulties, whether they be financial or otherwise, one feels dejected and frustrated. The objectives of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann are essentially idealistic. History will record, and historians have already accepted, that it was the spiritual revival in this country that led eventually and inevitably to the founding of the State. Without that spiritual revival of which the founding of the Gaelic League was the central part and the other developments that followed thereafter, possibly we would not be here this evening discussing the merits of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann or discussing whether we should allocate £200,000, £300,000 or £500,000 to the organisation.
At a time such as this one wonders and one becomes somewhat dejected — but as far as I am concerned I go back to the sources of inspiration for the philosophies and aspirations of our people in the hard days. I refer to people like Traolach Mac Suibhne, Terence McSwiney, whose philosophy was in his Principles of Freedom. I have it as a regular companion beside me and I reread it now and again whenever I come up against difficulties of this kind. I am not saying that I am in very serious difficulty this evening, I am not, as I am amongst friends.
Traolach Mac Suibhne said we must not only have philosophies but we must live our philosophies. The personnel and administrators of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann are living their philosophies. They are not merely preaching them. I also think of people like the man who was known affectionately as "fear na muintire", Willie Rooney, a man who worked hard and may possibly have shortened his life by working for the national inspiration and the leadership of his time. He died, if my memory serves me right, in 1901 at the age of 27. He said — and we must remember this — that history has never been made by the millions. The few who sacrificed themselves have done all that the world is proud of, a single seed eventually fills the corn field. Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann are symbolic of that single seed because in 1951 the level of respect and involvement in Irish traditional music was very low. Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann have brought it a long way since then. They deserve the consideration that we are asking in this amendment. The amendment deserves the support of this House and the recognition for their work throughout the last 32 or 33 years.
I appeal to the House to reappraise the importance of this organisation to the fabric of the State.
Tá sé an deacair ormsa i slí amháin éirí anseo inniu agus oráid a thabhairt ag moladh na hoibre atá á déanamh ag Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann nuair a bheidh orm i ndeireadh na dála vótáil in aghaidh an leasaithe seo agus tá sé an deacair freisin orm éirí anseo nuair atá an Brúnach, an Seanadóir Séamus ansin, ag éisteacht liom os rud é go bhfuil clú agus cáil air leis na blianta as ucht na hoibre atá á déanamh aige ar son Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. Cé go bhfuil an-mheas agam ar Chomhaltas Ceoltóirí — agus dúirt mé é sin an lá cheana agus ní rachaidh mé siar air arís — is dócha go dtuigeann Séamus go bhfuil tuairimí eile agam nach n-aontaíonn leis na tuairimí atá aige féin.
Last Sunday I had the privilege of being on top of the Mourne mountains, at Biddy Doyle's Cross, where Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann had an open air concert. The people of County Down assembled in large numbers and the parish priest arrived with a fiddle under his arm and took part in the music. Even though he was not a singer he sang a song. It typifies what Comhaltas have done to rouse the spirit of the people and get them organised. I enjoyed that session and I hope to enjoy another in Kilmihil at the August weekend where the best fleadh is held despite what Senator de Brún might think about his territory.
I am well aware of the work of Comhaltas, and I readily accept that the Minister has done admirably well in allocating almost £500,000 overall this year to Comhaltas. I know that figure has been disputed by Senator Howlin but it is not enough to say that money passes through hands. I would like to think that the money I get as a Senator would stick to my hand but unfortunately it seems to pass through. That is what getting money is all about. It goes through and maybe it is a way of arguing for more, but the case could not have been put any better. All grants are spent on expenses in promoting their cause.
There are one or two matters about which I am not very happy. I do not agree that decisions are not made at the top if they are made by either the Ard Comhairle or a management board. Ministers would certainly fall for that piece of logic in a big way if they could blame the electorate for decisions that are made. When people get to the top the buck stops with them. It does not matter whether the recommendation comes from the grassroots in County Clare or County Monaghan, in the long run the decision has to be made by those at the top. I do not accept that you can defend a doubling of the cost of a building from £400,000 to £800,000. That is indefensible and I do not care whether it involves a semi-State, private or a voluntary body like Comhaltas. There must be control and common sense and I say that as an admirer of Comhaltas.
I agree with Senator Howard when he said that if the voluntary part of Comhaltas is taken over by paid workers there will be trouble. Senators are here mainly because they have spent their lifetime working on voluntary bodies, freely giving their time. There is no way one could be compensated for the time spent working with voluntary bodies. The spirit goes out of most things when people can claim expenses. I know that running costs are one thing but I worry that Comhaltas might over-kill in their efforts to look for more money. It would be nice if they received more money but £300,000 is a fair contribution nowadays. I would not like people to turn sour and say even though they are getting a good lot they want more.
For that reason I would like to think that I am justified in voting for the Minister's decision in giving £300,000 and in voting against the amendment, much as I would like to give extra money to Comhaltas. There is a limit and everybody has to be seen to get a fair crack of the whip. The Minister has done that in allocating £300,000.
Ba mhaith liomsa tacú leis an leasú seo. Ach amháin nárbh bhféidir le Fianna Fáil a shocrú cén áit a bhfaighfear an chéad míle punt eile agus to raibh seans acu nuair a bhíomar ag caint faoi rud éigin níos luaithe inniu socrú a dhéanamh i gcaoi is go mbeadh airgead ar fáil chun cabhrú le Comhaltas agus chun a lán rudaí eile a dhéanamh, toisc nach raibh siad ábalta aontú le chéile cén tuairim a bhí acu faoi King's Inns agus rudaí mar siúd, tá siad ag iarraidh airgead a thógaint as níl a fhios againn cén áit chun cabhrú le Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. Is beag duine san Teach seo nó in áit ar bith sa tír a labhródh i gcoinne na hoibre atá á déanamh ag Comhaltas, ach má táimid chun cabhrú le Comhaltas caithfimid a rá cén áit as a thiocfaidh an t-airgead.
Fianna Fáil have been a little too clever in proposing an extra £100,000 to be given to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann without apparently saying where it should come from, because we now have a very clear picture of where the funds are being allocated. As it stands, the major loss would appear to be in regard to the Minister's proposals for doing work on courts and so on. I am a little worried that the cost of a new Children's Court may well exceed the Minister's estimated £750,000 in which case it would be very difficult to maintain the commitment which has been given of £400,000 to legal aid.
If Fianna Fáil had wished to propose an amendment on the first proposal in this Bill to give money to the King's Inns perhaps, for instance, to halve it, then they would have a logical case for supporting the allocation of substantial extra funding to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann.
As it stands, they are trying to be a little bit of Tadhg an Dhá Thaobh, supporting all the good causes without indicating what their priorities are. I do not think that I as an Independent Member of the House could possibly support that sort of gamesmanship. Therefore, let it be written in large letters that I will be supporting the Government.
We will underline it.
Please allow me to clarify something I said and which was commented on by Senator Howard. I was not advocating that the State would take over the work of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. Far from it. The point I was making was that it is the responsibility of the State to preserve our rich cultural heritage for future generations. That work is being done for the State, and being done very well, by Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and recognition of this should be shown with sufficient funds. As Senator de Brún said, the funds they are getting are not sufficient and that is the reason for the amendment.
The appeal to the nation for funds has been mentioned not by me but by other Senators. I did not say this earlier — although I had something quite important to say about it — because I did not wish to trumpet our deeds.
Fleá Cheoil Chonnachta was held in Strokestown, County Roscommon, on 23 and 24 June. I mention this to relate to the importance of the efforts we are making to provide funds for the organisation. We are not begging for money. I want to make that quite clear. We are here because we believe in what we are doing. I have here the clár of the fleá in Strokestown on 23 and 24 June. As a trustee, I felt a responsibility to issue an appeal that would be printed in that clár in the knowledge, and in the belief, that a great many people attending the fleá would read this appeal and possibly be influenced by it to contribute towards the project for which we are seeking funds. This is the appeal:
As musicians, patrons and competitors assemble here in Strokestown over the weekend to participate in the various activities and enjoy the festive spirit of Fleá Chonnachta 1984, many will not realise that the future of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann is very seriously threatened because of its present enormous financial problems. This, unfortunately, is the stark reality.
To ensure the survival of Comhaltas, the Ard-Chomhairle has embarked on a nation-wide fund raising campaign. Details of this campaign will be available on the national media: radio, television, local and national newspapers. During the coming weeks a letter from Comhaltas Ceoltóiri Éireann appealing for financial aid will be delivered to every home in the country — to every home in the whole of Ireland.
As a Trustee of the Organisation, I earnestly appeal for your full and wholehearted support for this most worthy cause. I sincerely hope you will support it in every possible way.
And there are many ways in which you can help.
You may offer assistance to your local Comhaltas branch, or County Co-ordinator; encourage your friends and acquaintances to assist; and, of course, contribute to the fund as generously as you can. Any subscription, no matter how small, will be greatly appreciated. By giving such assistance you will be playing your part to save and strengthen our great national movement which has done so much to revive and restore Irish traditional music from the most lowly status to its now rightful premier position among the Arts of Ireland.
Our native culture — language, song and dance — is the heart and soul of our beloved country. To neglect or let it die, would be a national disaster. I am fully confident that this will not be allowed to happen, and that the people of Ireland will rally to the call of Comhaltas and so will make the year 1984 a memorable one in the struggle for the preservation of the basic elements of our nationhood.
Déanaim an achaine seo in ainm Chomhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, agus in ainm na hÉireann. Bíodh misneach againn. Mátátuar éadóchais inár dtimpeall tá iliomad cúiseanna dóchais againn chomh maith. "Ní neart go cur le chéile", deirtear. Cuirimís le chéile agus ní buafar orainn.
Séamus de Brún,
(Iontaobhaí).
This is how I feel my responsibility in relation to appealing for funds for our organisation and to the ideals and philosophies which I hold so dear. That is the reason I am here this evening appealing to the House and to the Minister to accede to our amendment.
Question put: "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 11.
Tá
- Belton, Luke.
- Browne, John.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Connor, John.
- Conway, Timmy.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- Daly, Jack.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dooge, James C.I.
- Ferris, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Alexis J.G.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Harte, John.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- Lennon, Joseph.
- Loughrey, Joachim.
- McAuliffe-Ennis, Helena.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McGuinness,
- Catherine I. B.
- Magner, Pat.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Leary, Séan.
- O'Mahony, Flor.
- Quealy, Michael A.
- Robinson, Mary T.W.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Níl
- de Brún, Séamus.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Honan, Tras.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Belton and Harte; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and de Brún.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.