Mr. Eoin Dorgan:

Following on from Deputy Ó Cuív's point about corporate and social responsibility, it was always emphasised through the dormant accounts fund debates that there was personal responsibility too. If people are fortunate enough to have significant assets, they should think of how to properly set out what the assets are and how their property flows to their successors or inheritors.

With regard to the point about private property, Article 43.2 states that one can delimit it for the common good. The Deputy's point is right that the common good is the historic and national importance of these artefacts. It is more difficult to justify these on a common good basis if an individual gets an asset of wealth because the State has taken an action. That is why the Deputy's point about looking at this from an historic and cultural perspective is a strong basis to allow some exercise to take place.

There will be a cost and it will either fall on the Exchequer or the private sector. If it falls on the private sector, it will fall on ordinary bank customers eventually, not on the people who will benefit from these assets if they were to go back to private ownership. Mr. Jordan outlined earlier how 50% of these dormant accounts funds end up going back but there is a net €25 million. We have to account for them through standard Government accounting rules. We all know it is highly unlikely that it will ever be called upon.