Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Oct 1959

Vol. 177 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Funds of Suitors Bill, 1959—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The object of this Bill is to enable part of the funds of suitors vested in the Accountant of the Courts of Justice to be utilised for three specific purposes, namely, to finance the rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre, to finance the repair and renovation of the buildings of the Society of King's Inns and to provide for the creation of a captial fund for the maintenance of the Library and to recoup the Exchequer a sum advanced in 1944 by way of a Grant-in-Aid to the Library for the re-binding of books.

A suggestion that the State should provide assistance towards the cost of rebuilding the Abbey Theatre was first put forward by the owners of the Theatre, the National Theatre Society, in 1937, when they were being pressed by Dublin Corporation to make changes in the building to ensure safety from fire. Although the idea was received favourably by successive Ministers for Finance, various factors, including the advent of the Second World War, operated to delay its coming to a head. Meanwhile, in 1951 the building was damaged by fire and left unfit for further performances. Alternative temporary accommodation was obtained in the Rupert Guinness Memorial Hall and afterwards in the Queen's Theatre, which is still being used.

In December, 1954, the then Government announced that, subject to the approval of the Dáil, they would supplement whatever funds the Directors of the Abbey had, or might have themselves to rebuild the Theatre on the old site in accordance with plans to be approved of on general lines. There was delay in preparing sketch plans due to protracted negotiations for the acquisition of an adjoining public house with a view to its demolition so as to enlarge the site. These premises were ultimately acquired in 1957 and a sum of £26,000 was voted by way of Supplementary Estimate in 1957/58 in respect of their acquisition. Sketch plans for the new Theatre prepared by the Architect, Mr. Michael Scott (in consultation with Monsieur Pierre Sonrel of Paris) have since been received and approved by the Minister for Finance. Detailed plans and specifications are shortly to be submitted after which the contract for the work will be placed.

The National Theatre Society has received annual State assistance for the Abbey since 1925-26 because of its importance in the cultural life of the metropolis and the country. The current year's provision under this head is £14,000 (Subhead B of Miscellaneous Expenses Estimate). The Society's policy is to cater for the production of plays by Irish playwrights reflecting the way of life of the Irish people. Being thus restricted in the choice of its performances and having to compete with the cinema and other forms of indoor entertainment, including to an increasing extent television, the Theatre inevitably operates at a loss. Moreover, the Queen's Theatre premises are not regarded as being suitable to meet the requirements of Abbey audiences. In addition they are expensive to run—which all adds to the loss.

From every point of view, including that of the Abbey's prestige, it is clear that the sooner it gets new premises the better. As the State has been assisting the Theatre annually, it is only logical that it should come to the Theatre's assistance in the matter of providing a new building. In fact it has already contributed an instalment of the cost by the grant of £26,000 for site acquisition in 1957-58.

Associated with the Abbey are many Irish names of international repute such as Synge, Yeats, O'Casey, Robinson and Murray and it is to be hoped that the new Abbey, with its second auditorium for experimental plays and the like, will stimulate fresh development in Irish dramatic art. It is considered, in all the circumstances, that the rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre is a very appropriate purpose to which some of the suitors' funds vested in the Accountant of the Courts of Justice might be applied.

I come now to the provisions with respect to King's Inns. Some two years ago the Chief Justice approached the Government on behalf of the Benchers, who are the controlling body of the Society of King's Inns, to ask for financial assistance because of the difficulties they were experiencing in maintaining the Society's buildings and running its Library notwithstanding that heavy increases had been made in the fees and subscriptions which constitute the Society's principal source of income.

Later there was a meeting between the representatives of the Benchers and the Taoiseach at which the Minister for Finance and I were present at which the matter was fully discussed. As a result of these discussions and the inquiries which followed it became evident that the buildings, which were erected at the beginning of the last century, were in danger of falling into ruins unless money could be found to undertake an extensive programme of renovation and repair and that this danger had been much increased by the appearance of dry rot. Such a programme, it was estimated, would cost about £45,000 to complete.

Expenditure on this scale is quite beyond the resources of the Society which unlike some of the English Inns of Court has benefited from no rich endowments. At the same time the running of the Society's Library has been a heavy financial burden. Its only income is a grant of £433 a year which was authorised by the Copyright Act of 1836 when the privilege of receiving free books was withdrawn and the whole of this sum has to be expended on the purchase of books and is, in fact, insufficient for that purpose.

King's Inns was the last work in Dublin of James Gandon, the architect who designed and supervised the erection of the Custom House, the Four Courts, the Military Infirmary and the Westmoreland Street facade of the Bank of Ireland. Gandon retired while the building was in course of construction and the work was completed by his pupil and partner, Henry Aaron Baker. The cupola above the join of the two wings was designed by Francis Johnson, the architect of the General Post Office, Dublin. Before the completion of the south wing (intended for the Library) it was taken over by the Government to house, first, the Prerogative Court and, later, the Registry of Deeds. The Registry of Deeds has occupied this portion of the building ever since. When the Government took over the south wing it became necessary to make other provision for the library. A site was found adjacent and the present Library, which was completed in 1827, was then built on this site. The architect was Frederick Darley. In 1892 the Library was enlarged by the addition of an annexe, in stone and steel, on the east end of the building.

There is, I believe, agreement amongst those best qualified to judge that the building of which King's Inns constitute the north wing is a minor classic and one of the finest buildings of its kind in Dublin. In the Government's view it is well worth preserving. The Library contains a very valuable collection of books. As well as being used by students and barristers it is open to the public on certain conditions and permission for reading and reference is freely given. Subsection (4) of Section 2 of the Bill provides for the payment to the trustees of the Society of sums totalling £70,000 of which the sum of £25,000 is for the creation of an investment fund and the application of the income thereof for the maintenance of the Library or the general purposes of the Society, the balance being earmarked to recoup or defray the cost of expenditure incurred or to be incurred on the Society's buildings.

The funds of suitors include the unclaimed dividends and balances to the credit of suitors and estates carried down for at least two centuries to the Judicature Act, 1877, by which all the Superior Courts in Ireland were amalgamated. Since then there have been added further accumulations and additions down to the present time. These are what are known as the dormant funds. The destruction of the Four Courts and the Public Record Office in 1922 have made the establishment of claims to the funds accumulated prior to 1922 virtually impossible.

The funds of suitors have been resorted to from time to time for public purposes. In general, the direction of these appropriations was for such purposes as the building of the Four Courts, the Public Record Office, the Bar Library and purposes in connection with the Superior Courts in Dublin. The net effect of the appropriations already made is that the amounts of cash and securities standing to the credit of the Accountant of the Courts of Justice in the Bank of Ireland and the books of the various companies whose securities he holds are less than the amounts of cash and securities standing to the credit of suitors by, respectively, £325,150 and £130,000. In other words, cash and securities to the amount of £455,150 have already been withdrawn in pursuance of statutory authority.

I am calling attention to this lest it be supposed that the dormant funds are inexhaustible. In the aggregate they amount to some £860,000 of which more than half has already been withdrawn. Accordingly, the withdrawal of a further sum of £323,000, for which the Bill provides, will exhaust the funds when account is taken of the fall in the value of the investments.

It will be observed that, as in the case of previous withdrawals, the Bill affords a complete indemnity to suitors by which they will be absolutely protected from any possible loss.

Mr. McGilligan

This apparently represents practically an exhaustion of the funds in the account dealing with the funds of suitors. I take these two objects set out in the proposed legislation as being proper, worthy and welcome applications of whatever moneys there are. The Minister is quite right in warning that there are no further funds to be drawn on. It is a fact that over the years these funds have grown. There is no doubt that over five, ten or 15 years they have amounted to substantial sums to be drawn upon for purposes such as these.

The Minister said there are three purposes. I take them under two headings. There is the payment for the rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre. Secondly, there are, under two heads, the gift of £70,000 to the Benchers of King's Inns. With regard to the Abbey Theatre, £26,000 was already expended in 1957 as regards the acquisition of the site. I noticed that subsection (2) rather limits the payment of the £250,000, or whatever sum is drawn for the rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre. A narrow interpretation of that might mean just the application of the funds to the actual structure itself. Personally, when I read this Bill first, I wondered whether any advance was to be made not only towards acquisition but towards exhausting other claims in the area where the new theatre will be built. It may well be that the sum of £26,000 brought in in 1957-58 already provided for that and no further sum is likely to be incurred on anything except the actual building of the Abbey Theatre. If there is anything else, it might be well to have this phrase modified in some way.

This, as the Minister explained, is merely for the rebuilding. While the Minister went into a certain amount of detail with regard to the plays that have been produced and the people in Irish literature and culture who have had their plays brought on to the Abbey stage, I should expect Deputies to confine themselves to the question of the proper use of these funds and apply them to the rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre. That should be done irrespective of what a Deputy's own view might be as to the type of play that might be produced. I do not think we have that right. I hope we would not be given any right with regard to criticism of the sums that have been given. Either we trust those who run the Abbey Theatre or we do not.

Mr. T. Lynch

We do not.

Mr. McGilligan

Those who do not should keep their objections for the people who administer those funds and not seek at this point to diminish the funds by way of any reflection on whatever plays which may have met with objection in the minds of certain people.

I now come to what I call the second matter—the payment in connection with the trustees of the Society of the King's Inns of the sum of £70,000. I welcome this sum. I am glad the Minister has put this on the footing that the buildings which the Society inherited are worth preserving. Great efforts have been made by the Benchers themselves to have these buildings properly repaired, maintained and kept in a way which would be a credit to them and the city. The Benchers' efforts are strictly limited. They have certain securities bringing in a certain amount of income. They have no other way of increasing this income.

Other sources of revenue which the Benchers have are very limited indeed. It is mainly a question of fees paid by students. These fees have been seriously raised in the past number of years, so seriously, indeed, that, as an individual, I feel that they are a very severe heavy imposition on the parents of students. There is no other way in which the Benchers can secure funds.

Over the past five years, the Benchers have pledged their credit with the bank to a very considerable extent. The repairs which have been carried through by the Benchers themselves in a period of less than five years amount to about £20,000. Practically the whole of that has been paid by overdraft. A situation has been reached in which the securities which the Society have are very nearly exhausted. A precarious position was approaching, if not already reached.

The future is not very rosy as far as the preservation of the buildings is concerned. There are two main buildings—the library and the chief King's Inns buildings. I saw an account some time ago. The Benchers have to meet the cost of certain work already done and not yet paid for and also the cost of certain other work connected with the King's Inns buildings proper which must be done. The estimated expenditure one time was £12,000. The library requires for decoration and repair, apart altogether from maintenance, a sum of about £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000. If this free money, so to speak, is used to pay off the overdraft —it is a very substantial overdraft— for the Benchers, there is barely sufficient to meet, as I say, the work already done or advised to be done, or the work which, in accordance with the architect's report, appears to be absolutely necessary for the proper repair and redecoration of the library itself.

The figures I put previously before the Government, have, I think, changed very seriously to the disadvantage of the Society. I believe that the moneys which will have to be expended are a great deal more than the two sums I have mentioned. Nevertheless, the situation has very definitely improved. The buildings in the state of preservation in which they have been put over the past five years are in a condition in which the maintenance costs ought to diminish to a considerable extent. From the plans and the recommendations of the architects and others, it appears that heavier expenditure than what was thought at first may have to be incurred. The buildings were left by the British, when they evacuated this country, in a very bad state indeed and there has been no great money apparently spent on them for many years.

On the first approach by the Benchers to inquire into this whole matter, it was discovered, first of all, that there was a certain amount of dry rot but, at a later stage, more serious defects were revealed. What is called fungal attack, worm infestation, boring beetle, and all sorts of things were discovered and once the inquiry started, it led on to recommendations for extensive repairs which were being put up as being necessary. The investigation showed very serious defects in the whole of the King's Inns buildings as well as the Library, requiring very heavy expenditure and that the whole of the defects in the building have been completely eradicated by the expenditure heavy though it was, is not just accepted by everybody except those of the most optimistic frame of mind. Nevertheless, the position will be very definitely improved and the burden which the Benchers have to carry in their efforts to preserve these buildings and to provide for the education of future lawyers will be very greatly lessened and, for that, the Benchers, I am sure, would have thanked the Government at the time as I thank them now.

I urge a few technical points. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 speaks of the Capital Fund. The Capital Fund is the fund set up by the Central Fund Act, 1956. It is not defined in this Bill as being that fund. There is merely this reference in a sort of accidental way in sub-section (2) and it is quite clear to anybody reading it, but it may not be the interpretation given to it later if any Court discussion took place that that is clearly to be identified as the Capital Fund established by a particular part of Section 4 of the Central Fund Act, 1956. I am sure that this has been looked at, but, if not, I would ask that attention be devoted to it. It may be necessary in the definitions to define the fund as being the Capital Fund referred to in the Act of 1956.

I could have wished that some other way had been discovered of dealing with this matter. The Capital Fund established by the Central Fund Act, 1956, was, of course, the fund into which there were paid the moneys derived from the special import duties and those special import duties had been put on for certain purposes to help in respect of capital matters. There was a restriction put upon the expenditure of the moneys and it is that restriction which is now referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 2 of this Act, which runs that, notwithstanding anything contained in the particular sub-section, the Capital Fund may be applied for the purpose of the rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre.

That is a very definite gap brought about in the old Capital Fund. It is a very definite swerve away from the purpose for which the Capital Fund was established and the reason why sub-section (2) has to be put in is that payments out of the Capital Fund were restricted. The Minister was there given power to apply for any purposes for or towards the cost of which public moneys are provided and, it then continued, "which are conducive to the development or improvement of capital resources". The fund was clearly intended to be used for the development of capital resources and now there is an encroachment on that. As I say, I have no objection to moneys of this type being set apart for the rebuilding of the Abbey, but this is the first attack upon the Capital Fund. It may be followed by others and within a very short time, we may find that the Capital Fund, built up for capital purposes, will be entirely dissipated by its being devoted to other things. I would have wished that the matter could be handled in another way, and I think it could easily have been, but the draftsman decided on this way of doing it.

According to the later sub-sections of Section 4 of the Central Fund Act, 1956, the Minister has to prepare an account of any payments into or out of the fund and an account has to be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General and, by a later subsection, a copy of every report by the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of such account must be put before each House of the Oireachtas.

As far as the payment made to the trustees of the Benchers of the King's Inns is concerned, there will be a single payment, I presume. There will be nothing to report except merely that the payment was made. But, the maximum of £250,000 for the rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre will, I assume, be paid out in such fractions during the course of a year or years as may be required for the purpose. I presume that there is still an obligation on the Minister, seeing that this is now a source of the Capital Fund, to have an account prepared of any moneys coming to some part of this £250,000 and to send that to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to have a report from the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to these sums.

I do not know in what period this £250,000 will be spent by those in charge of the Abbey but it would possibly mean that over a number of years, when a report is presented by the Comptroller and Auditor General and there have been payments of certain sums during a number of years, there will be an occasion year by year for discussion on how the building is going and, if people have any views as to whether it is according to good plan or if there is any deficiency that occurs to Deputies to talk about, there will be an opportunity for these criticisms to be made.

Section 3 of this Bill says that the State assumes the liability in respect of this amount of £323,000, that is to say, if any claims are made against this dormant fund. The Minister has given us certain figures with regard to the accumulation of this fund, which was £860,000 at one time and has been reduced by certain demands, that £450,000 has been already drawn, and we are now drawing £323,000. Can the Minister tell us—I think the answer will be a satisfactory one—whether there have been any late, so to speak, claims in respect of any of these funds. Has any claim come in against any part of the whole £455,000 already used? I only want to get some indication of how far these funds are really dormant or whether there is a revival of interest by those who own these funds from time to time and to what extent that has depleted what otherwise might be a bigger fund.

Mr. T. Lynch

I do not agree at all with my colleague, Deputy McGilligan. I think we should be allowed to have a full discussion here when the Members of this House are going to agree to pay out £250,000 which the Minister will get out of the funds of suitors for the rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre. We are supposed to give £250,000 towards rebuilding the Abbey Theatre. I am in full agreement with that because the Abbey is dear to all Irishmen. It is something we were proud of—and I said "were proud of". When we have to pay the piper we should be allowed to call the tune for the people running the Abbey. It has been receiving a subsidy from Dáil Éireann for many years. I have no objection to that. I would be in favour of increasing it were it necessary. This occasion gives me an opportunity of calling attention to the dead hand policy of the Abbey for many years past.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That may not be discussed on the Second Stage. Only the general principles of the Bill are before the House. The details can be raised on the Committee Stage.

Mr. T. Lynch

Three months ago I asked the Minister for Finance, when he was bringing in his Estimate, a question concerning the payment of the subsidy to the Abbey Theatre. He told me then that this would be the occasion to raise it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, these points are relevant on the Committee Stage.

Mr. T. Lynch

Will I be allowed to discuss the policy of the Theatre?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It seems to the Chair that that would be a matter for the management of the Abbey and the Minister would have little or no responsibility in the matter at all.

Mr. T. Lynch

I consider this a most important issue. We are to give £250,000 for the rebuilding of the Abbey, which will be run by the National Theatre Company. We should be allowed to say whether we agree with the way they have been running it and to ask will they run the new Abbey in the same manner. With all respect, I think this is the time and the place.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is scarcely the time to go into the details into which the Deputy wishes to go. On the Second Stage, as I have already pointed out, only the general principles of the Bill fall for discussion.

Mr. T. Lynch

In his introductory speech the Minister said that the Abbey had to carry on at a loss in spite of television and so on. There is a great revival of interest in the live theatre at present and I do not think the Abbey faces as bad a time as the Minister conveyed in his speech. He said it had to be subsidised because of all its great difficulties. I do not think its difficulties are great at all.

My intention in intervening was to raise the question of the policy of the Theatre and the manner in which it was carried on. You say, Sir, I will be allowed to raise it in the Committee Stage. I shall wait for that.

Mr. Desmond

Everyone will agree with the provision of £250,000 for the Abbey Theatre but I believe we in Cork have a crib about it. The Government were generous in giving a loan towards the rebuilding of Cork Opera House, which was burned down, too, but I fail to see why they did not give a grant. There is as much claim on the Government's generosity in the capital of the south as there is here in Dublin. There is a big difference between the treatment concerning the rebuilding of the Abbey and the loan offered for Cork Opera House. As those of us connected with local authorities know, there are always strings attached to a loan besides the matter of repayment. The Minister could have shown greater generosity by giving a slice of this money to the Cork Opera House. I shall not follow in the tracks of Deputy Lynch, but all I can say is this. When the Abbey Theatre were on their high horse, at least Kerry and Cork combined to show that the play Sive, rejected by the Abbey, was a success.

Major de Valera

In the first instance a point has arisen, on which, with respect to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I should like, as a Deputy, to comment. I think I have a perfect right to discuss the policy of the Abbey in this regard if this House is to vote money for them. I should like formally, in case it should go by in the record as a precedent, to make that statement and to say that I think it is a serious matter that the consideration of policy like that should be barred when we are discussing the voting of moneys. Although I have not anything particular to say on the precise subject, I think the issue that has arisen in regard to this is of such importance to warrant making this remark.

As regards the general policy, many of us would wish that the policy adopted perhaps sometimes were different, but on the whole I must agree with Deputy McGilligan in general terms that it is within certain limits and the limits do not come up for discussion in this debate. It is better that the people charged with those matters should exercise their discretion. There are always sanctions available in other ways afterwards in this House. I did not intend to talk on the question of the Abbey except to make this statement I have made about our right to debate matters of policy without restriction while this House is asked to vote moneys.

I am more particularly interested in the proposal to assist the Society of the King's Inns. It is one of the few occasions on which any of the transactions and dealings of that body come before us. Perhaps we should not let the opportunity pass without remarking on the work being done by that, if you like, vocational body. The point has been dealt with in greater detail by Deputy McGilligan but the King's Inns has, as the educating and controlling body for one branch of the legal profession, fulfilled a very useful function in our society.

I should also like to make this remark in connection with it. In these days when organisation, and the compulsion of modern life force patterns on a community which often tend to be prejudicial to the interests of the individual, it is in the law courts, as we traditionally know them—in the tradition of law fostered by the Benchers, by the Society and by the legal profession—that the best guarantee for the individual will be found in the long run. Anything that can be done to preserve that position is a useful contribution to our constitutional stability. Taking for granted that there is no need to argue further for the cause, the question then is what concrete steps are to be taken? Again, Deputy McGilligan forestalled me in his reference to the condition of the buildings. The Minister referred to the history of them, and so forth. Now, apart from the constitutional asset, if one might so describe it, in the Society itself and in its traditions, we have in the actual buildings a municipal asset, if not a national asset. The allocation of funds to preserve these buildings then is something with which no one, I think, would quarrel.

Moving in that area in the past, one was struck by the shabby appearance of the locality as a whole. Anything that can be done to refresh it will be a useful contribution to life in that part of the city. Possibly I am going outside the rules of order now, but I would suggest that the whole of Henrietta Street and the King's Inns should be the object of attention for the purpose of rehabilitating them. There are in the vicinity houses in very poor condition and renovation, if not rebuilding, is necessary. There is a housing problem there of sorts, but that is a matter for the Dublin Corporation. I think it would be appropriate to take measures to put these buildings in order and restore them, now that this money is being allocated for a specific purpose. The time is opportune to deal with the vicinity as a whole. There is a park in front of the King's Inns.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Justice would scarcely have any responsibility for that.

Major de Valera

I quite agree, but I think I should take this opportunity to make this very proper suggestion. I know the funds can only be applied to the purpose the Minister has suggested, and I have no wish to go further than that. At the same time, I cannot refrain from suggesting that the park could be developed into a very attractive amenity. Where the funds would come from for that development I do not know. I do not know if the Office of Public Works would have any responsibility. If what I have suggested were done, the Minister would not only achieve the purpose for which he is allocating these funds now, but his purpose would be greatly enhanced.

I agree with a previous speaker that this is a commendable and welcome measure. I suggest that the project would be greatly enhanced were the Government to co-ordinate its activities with those of the Dublin Corporation with the object of rehabilitating the area as a whole. Dublin would then have an asset of considerable value to it and to the nation as a whole.

Mr. Russell

I am not quite clear as to the financial implications in this matter. I understood there was a sum of over £400,000 available, of which £250,000 was to be allocated to the rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre and £70,000 to the repair and renovation of the King's Inn. That seems to me to leave quite a substantial amount of money on hands and, if my calculation is correct, I should like to support the sentiments expressed by Deputy Desmond. He suggested that before arriving at decisions to spend these substantial amounts in the capital city regard might be had to the cultural needs of other areas.

Deputy Desmond mentioned Cork and the rebuilding of the Opera House there. My native city, the third city in the State, has not even got a civic theatre. Quite apart from that, it recently suffered a very substantial loss through the burning of the only small theatre in the city. Some day, the Government might make an effort to break away from this apparent desire to centralise so much expenditure in and near the city of Dublin. I do not say that in any narrow sense. I appreciate there are certain national institutions which must, of necessity, be located in Dublin. When, however, it is a question of giving substantial grants to encourage culture, art, drama and so forth, the time is opportune for an appreciation of the fact that there are other places in the country besides Dublin in which culture should also be encouraged. On my calculation there is still something left in the kitty and, when the Minister comes to allocate the balance, I hope he will have regard to the fact that there are other centres, outside Dublin which voluntarily, and without any assistance, do much to encourage the amateur theatrical movement in the country.

Mr. Moloney

As a Deputy who represents a rural constituency which has made its mark in the sphere of amateur drama, I welcome the Minister's approach to the problem of the Abbey Theatre. We are all aware that the Abbey Theatre could not, by its own unaided efforts, take any steps to procure a building worthy of the purpose which it is called upon to fulfil. The Abbey is a national institution. For years, pressure has been brought upon the Government to do something to assist to erect a building for the Abbey Theatre. I can appreciate that the Government have to be somewhat conservative in providing funds for a project of this kind. I am happy now that the Government have found it possible to allocate these funds. I am sure they took every precaution to ensure they were on safe ground before deciding to make these moneys available.

The Abbey, as I have said, is a national institution. From that point of view, it is only right that the Government should start at the top. At the same time, I endorse the suggestion made by Deputy Russell that the Minister might find it possible at some later date to allocate sums to the other parts of the country and to rural areas generally to help local drama organisations to erect buildings for the development of drama in these districts.

A big drawback in this matter from the point of view of drama is the lack of facilities which is to be noted in provincial areas and even in big towns. Now that the Government have seen fit to recognise the importance of a national theatre in the city of Dublin, I hope that in a short time they will attend to the points which have been made this evening and which I support. I feel that the attempt which has been made to discuss the policy of the Abbey Theatre is something which should not have occurred on this Stage of the Bill.

Mr. T. Lynch

Why not?

Mr. Moloney

I am not giving a ruling. Sir, but I think it would be a pity if we confused the purpose of this legislation——

Mr. Corish

It is no use having people if you have no place for them.

Mr. Moloney

There is a time and a place for a discussion of that nature, and whether the policy is right or wrong, the principle enshrined in this Bill is important, that is, to provide to the organisation which has charge of the national theatre at the moment financial assistance to erect a building. It is a very retrograde step to take at this stage and in so far as I am entitled to do so, I should like to repudiate the suggestion, made more by innuendo than anything else, that the policy of the national theatre is not generally satisfactory to the people. I do not propose to discuss it now.

Mr. T. Lynch

On a point of order, I accepted your ruling, Sir, that policy was not to be discussed and Deputy Moloney has been discussing the policy of the Abbey Theatre for the past five minutes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moloney has been discussing policy very generally and that is relevant on this Stage. Deputy Lynch wanted to go into the details of the various plays presented by the management of the theatre and the Chair ruled that was not relevant on this Stage.

Mr. T. Lynch

I did not. With all due respect, I did not.

Mr. Moloney

I have probably taken Deputy Lynch too seriously on this matter. This is a good national investment and I congratulate the Government, as I would congratulate any Government for that matter, on what I regard as taking a very realistic step in trying to do what should have been done many years ago.

Mr. T. Lynch

I appeal to you, Sir, to allow me to continue where I left off. I know it is unusual but I should like to point out that even Deputy de Valera said that we should discuss actual policy. I do not want to discuss the details of plays. I want to discuss the general policy of the Abbey Theatre company, a group to which we are about to hand over a £250,000 building. With all due respect, Sir, I would ask you to reconsider and to allow me to continue and rule me out of order if you think I am going into too much detail.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy was ruled out of order on the grounds that he was going into detail and the Chair informed him that perhaps some of the points he raised might be relevant on the next Stage.

Mr. T. Lynch

With the greatest respect, I was not going——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid I cannot argue further with the Deputy.

Mr. Moloney

He will get a chance another time.

Mr. T. Lynch

If he is here.

Mr. MacCarthy

As I understand it, the purpose of this Bill is to make money available to preserve an idea and an ideal in the very atmosphere, on the same site where a dramatic tradition of national importance and high standards has grown up; to make some impact on our national culture; and to spread the quality of Irish dramatic art not only throughout the provinces here but also in other lands which have an interest in Ireland.

We all hoped that sufficient funds would be available to promote the same idea in any other part of Ireland where there was sufficient foundation for it. There is no use in half doing a job and when the Government—with, I am sure, the support of all Parties and the country generally—decided to rebuild the Abbey as a national cultural centre, there was no use in distributing the funds over the country and having none of the works completed so they decided to complete this work. I feel sure there may be some comparison between this project and the rebuilding of the Opera House in Cork because the Abbey plays were presented there, just as they were in many other cities in Ireland, but we must recognise that the Cork Opera House was a private enterprise. It was burned down and it was only partly insured, and the people of Cork and the surrounding districts have set up a fund which we hope will be supplemented. We had hoped it would be supplemented from this fund but when there is not sufficient money, we can have no grievance. At any rate, the general interest of the provinces will not be neglected when a cultural ideal of this nature is being preserved.

Mr. Lindsay

It is particularly commendable when money which is unclaimed in our Courts becomes available, that it should be spent on projects of this kind. There are, it must be admitted, several other noteworthy projects which might have, if not an equal claim, certainly a very strong one. I do not propose to advance any claim on behalf of any other project apart from the two dealt with in the Bill.

I would urge, though, as a point to be made to the Minister that when dealing with subsection (4), paragraph (b) of Section 2, which states:

for the creation of a capital fund and the application of the income thereof for either (as the Benchers of King's Inns may from time to time decide) the general purposes of the Society or the maintenance of the Library of the Society,

that stress should be laid upon the necessity for the editing of textbooks which are now hopelessly out-of-date and upon which money could be well spent, both in the interests of legal administration and from the point of view also of providing some purpose for people who are interested in that kind of avocation.

As to subsection (1) of Section 2— this may well be a Committee Stage point—while others do not seem to share my anxiety, there does not seem to be any machinery for making any kind of application to the Chief Justice for the payments out. The Minister might do well to consult his advisers as to whether some change should not be made there saying that the Bank of Ireland "shall, upon the order of the Chief Justice, upon motion by somebody on behalf of the Capital Fund, the Minister or the Trustees of the Society..." As it stands at present, it seems to me it would be a matter simply for the Chief Justice to do it, without any obligation upon him with regard to time. There is not any such provision as to an appointed day or anything of the kind to which we are accustomed in other Bills.

I am aware that the policy of the Abbey Theatre is not for discussion, except in a very general way. I have no objection to the description of "national theatre" if it is truly national and of nation-wide application. Neither have I any objection to the term "cultural", provided it is cultural and representative of what we understand to be culture in this country. It is one thing to be a live, national cultural centre. It is quite another thing to be something that is trying to preserve a tradition that has no cogency in the times in which we live. It might be well if that were borne in mind in any directions that might be given as to the expenditure and the use of this money, as far as the Abbey Theatre is concerned.

Mr. Ryan

As one of the latest arrivals on this political stage, may I make my humble submission in relation to this Bill. My contribution is a criticism but not of the objects of the Bill which I think are worthy and which deserve the support of every Deputy. My objection to the Bill is that it proposes to give a substantial sum to a company which has exasperated, annoyed and irritated some of the very best elements in the country. Whether those who are annoyed with or exasperated by the Abbey Theatre directorship are right or not is not the point at issue here. There is a considerable amount of public uneasiness regarding the existing directorship of the Abbey Theatre and such a vast sum of money should not be handed over to that directorship until public uneasiness has been allayed. Any person who takes the trouble to spend 1/- and 15 minutes of time, as I have done, in the Companies Office to read file 3360 of the Irish National Theatre Society Limited, will find on that file plenty to cause considerable uneasiness. It shows a history in which a majority of directors at any one time have, by deliberate action, silenced a director who was in a minority. That is not desirable.

If this House is to hand money over for the purpose of building a new Abbey Theatre which we hope and trust will carry on the finest traditions and achieve the objectives of those who founded the Abbey Theatre many years ago, it falls on us to ensure that that money is spent by a Board which has the confidence of the majority of the people. I am not for a moment concerned with the opinions of cranks. I am not for a moment concerned with the opinions of play writers whose plays have been rejected and who have provoked the disparaging remark of the Managing Director of the Abbey that the reason why so many people are opposed to him and his co-directors is that the directors have turned down so many worthless plays.

My concern is that the vast majority of the Irish people take no interest in the Abbey Theatre and, as for the minority, the majority of the minority have no confidence in the existing directorship. That is not a healthy situation. If an opportunity should come such as has now arrived to do something about it, then I respectfully say, we should do something about restoring public confidence in the theatre before handing over this money.

Completely apart from any personal arguments which may have taken place between directors of the Abbey Theatre and other individuals in this country, the existing directorship is justifiably not deserving of our confidence in that when the Abbey Theatre was burned to the ground, several leading industrialists and several generous-minded people offered money for the rebuilding of a new Abbey but the existing directorship spurned those offers of help. Some years later, having refused the help that was to be given out of the goodness of people's hearts, the directors then turned to the State and sought the money out of the taxpayers' pockets. It is only because some intelligent person decided to use money which would otherwise be lying inactive in the funds in Court that the taxpayer is being saved the immediate burden of providing this large amount of money but it would not be relevant to this Bill to say that the money might be spent in another fashion. It is relevant to say that we would not have to hand all this money to the Abbey if the existing directorship had accepted the wonderful offers of generous help from many sections of people at the time the Abbey was burned.

I think the reason they spurned these offers of help was that they did not want anybody to have any say whatever regarding their policy. If people had subscribed tens of thousands of pounds, they would have had some moral right to criticise. That is not a healthy situation. If it is to be a national theatre, it must be run by a society and by a board which has the confidence of the majority of the people. That will not be achieved if the existing Memorandum and Articles of Association are left as they are. Therefore, I respectfully say that before this money is handed over, public confidence should be restored in the directorship of the Abbey by ensuring that those who do criticise are not squeezed out of any influence which they might have by the directors using the powers they now have under the Memorandum and Articles of Association as they stand.

Regarding the money to be spent on the King's Inns, I am a member of a profession which was ejected by the learned Benchers of the King's Inns many years ago but I do not hold that against the members of the King's Inns. But I think it is time to rationalise the legal profession. Here in this capital city of Dublin, we have, to my knowledge, five law libraries and possibly there are more. If money can be saved and if a more modern and better system can be put into operation, I think it ought to be done, but in relation to this Bill I suppose we must preserve the building of the King's Inns, whether we house a law library in it or not but a change in the divisions in the legal profession is something to which we ought to turn our minds in the years ahead.

Mr. T. Lynch

I rose here this evening and I was told I should not speak on the policy of the directors of the Abbey Theatre. We have just heard his maiden speech by Deputy Ryan, in the course of which he referred to the policy of the directors of the Abbey Theatre. I ask that I should be allowed to say, as I was saying, that the Abbey has been described as the National Theatre but is not a national theatre. It has lost all claim to be called a National Theatre. It is buried down in the "Queens" in Dublin and they will not go on tour.

I have heard my colleagues say that this money should not have been given holus-bolus to the Abbey Theatre. Some Deputies have said that some of the money should go to Cork and Deputy Russell has said some of it should go to Limerick. Two years ago, we opened the Theatre Royal in Waterford and I did not come to this House to look for the money for it. The Waterford people reopened the theatre.

I come now to a complaint which I wanted to make and which I think I am now entitled to make. We invited the Abbey Theatre to send their company down to Waterford. I have the correspondence here and it is only right that one letter should be read here from the directors of the Abbey Theatre, the people to whom we propose to hand over £250,000. They said:

... if we had two plays each of which could be performed by seven or eight people and each of which could be well cast from our company without leaving the other short of suitable talent. In that case we could send whichever of the two plays seemed most suitable to Waterford and keep the other in the Queens.

That means they have only eight or nine actors or actresses about which they think anything because they have not been recruiting them. If they have not the money to recruit them they should go to Illsley and McCabe, Lord Longford, Cyril Cusack and Anew McMaster who are able to barnstorm all the towns in Ireland, to bring real drama to the countryside without any subsidies.

We are all proud of the Abbey Theatre. It is a possession of which Irishmen everywhere are proud. We are actually proud only of a tradition. We are proud of authors who are dead. We are proud of great actors who have gone by with nobody to take their place. It is not a legend— it has been freely said—that a play that has reached the international stage, written by an Irishman, was submitted to the Abbey and returned by them. This man had been over the course a few times and had struck some of the pages here and there. It came back rejected with the pages stuck. These are the people to whom we are giving this £250,000.

The Abbey Theatre is dear to all Irishmen, but it is doubly dear to Dublin men. Therefore, the Minister as a Dublin man looking upon the Abbey with a double reverence should, as I said when I was ruled out of order, ensure since we pay the piper we should be allowed to call the tune. I often hear people say that the political arm should not enter into these things. It is the political arm that votes the money and I do not see anything wrong with whatever Government is in power having representation on that Board so that the tune may be called if the necessity arises. The reason the directors of the Abbey would not have the help of Dublin merchants and other people who are proud of the Abbey and wanted it rebuilt when it had been burned was that they were afraid these merchants would look for some representation on the Board.

There have been two plays rejected by the Abbey in recent times which have reached the international theatre. The people who really count are the theatre-goers in Ireland and in Dublin and they have been complaining about the Abbey for years. A prominent civil servant stood up in the Abbey eight or nine years ago and protested about the type of show that was being put on in the old Abbey, and he was right. But of course the directors of the Abbey were able to say: "Hit me now with the child in my arms. This is the national theatre and the men who died shall be remembered forever" and so on, thus covering themselves with a smokescreen. Anybody who criticises them will be called a Philistine. I would prefer to be with the Philistines in this instance because I would not like to see the great tradition of the old Abbey die, and the great tradition of the old Abbey is being murdered by the present Board.

We are providing money so that the fabric of the old Abbey will be restored. We would ask the Minister to take the precaution of seeing that the policy and the administration of this new Abbey Theatre will be overhauled so that it will return to its former greatness.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor)

It is a pity that the discussion has digressed from the main purpose for which the Bill was brought in. We are dealing here in the main not with the policy of the Abbey Theatre but with the distribution of a certain sum of money which we are taking from funds of suitors known as the dormant funds. If the Abbey Directors are not running the theatre in the way the public demand it should be run, the remedy rests with the public. I am not myself acquainted with any of the complaints to which Deputies have referred in regard to the policy of the Abbey Theatre. The Abbey Theatre, no matter how anyone may look at it, is a national institution and has been regarded as such by the Irish people; not only has it been regarded as such by the Irish people but it is internationally regarded as the national theatre of Ireland.

The Abbey is restricted to some extent in regard to the type of plays it may produce. Other theatres are not so prevented from putting on the type of show they think will pay. I believe, myself, that the Abbey Theatre has been the fount of practically all the dramatic art that has grown up in this country over a number of years. We all know that there are dramatic societies in practically every county in Ireland which are highly competent societies capable of producing plays in a creditable manner. Most of these plays are plays that have been produced by the Abbey Theatre from time to time and the proof that the Abbey Theatre is the fount from which most of these societies spring is the very fact that, looking at these amateur dramatic societies producing their plays, one is immediately struck by what I might almost describe as the impersonation of the Abbey actors.

As I said, we are not discussing the question of the policy of the Abbey Theatre. We are discussing the question of the appropriation of these funds in conjunction with the Bill. The dormant funds are not inexhaustible. There are no means by which we can get money out of these dormant funds for any of the other proposals which have been made here this evening. I think it would be true to say that the amount of money which we are withdrawing from these dormant funds may possibly exhaust these funds. I say that by reason of the fact that most of the available moneys are available in the form of investments, and it is quite possible that if and when these investments are capitalised, they will have depreciated to quite a considerable extent. I cannot say to what extent they will have depreciated, but I feel pretty certain that they will have so depreciated and that, instead of having a balance of money, we may find there are no moneys left beyond the sum we are now distributing. If we were to add up or subtract and so on, it would be found—that is from the figures I have given—that there would be a balance of £80,000, or something like that, but with the depreciation to which I refer, there will possibly be no sum of money whatever available.

The Capital Fund which was established by subsection (2) of Section 4 of the Central Fund Act, 1956, provides a convenient repository for moneys that are to be paid out as required. If these moneys were paid into the Exchequer in the first instance and withdrawn, it would necessitate a Vote, so I think that is the expedient we are utilising here. If we put it into the Exchequer, the money would have to be voted out; by putting it into the Capital Fund, the Minister himself can release the money for these purposes without the necessity of having to bring in a Vote. The Vote is being taken now when this Bill is being dealt with. From that point of view, I think it is the most desirable manner in which the money can be withdrawn. The money will be given out on the order of the Chief Justice. The money will be released when the Chief Justice makes an order in that respect. The Capital Fund can be regarded as a kind of savings box into which the money is put and from which it can be taken out when required.

The subsection which establishes the Capital Fund states that it is to be known as the Capital Fund and, apparently the draftsman thinks that it does not require to be further identified or defined. For the purpose of the Bill, he appears to be satisfied with this form of draftsmanship.

In answer to Deputy McGilligan's inquiry, so far as I know, there have been no claims since the establishment of the State in respect of which any deficiency in the funds had to be made good. I think that meets the point.

Mr. McGilligan

There was no claim at all since 1922?

Mr. Traynor

No claim in which a deficiency arose. I do not think there is any more I can add. I think that the money will be put to an excellent purpose. There is no doubt that the library in the King's Inns will benefit to a considerable extent, especially from the fact that the interest on the £25,000 will probably, to a considerable extent, provide the books which were withdrawn some time ago. The £433 did not meet in any respect the requirements of the library. We hope that the interest which will accrue from the investment of the £25,000, plus the £433, will make a sum of money available which will buy the books required for the library.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting-Chairman

Is it proposed to take the Committee Stage now?

Mr. Sweetman

No.

Mr. McGilligan

No. Certainly while the King's Inns will be very glad to get the money released, the Bill was introduced last April and I see no special rush at this moment. It is quite possible that somebody may move that the money should not be paid to the Abbey Theatre and certainly an opportunity must be given to the Deputies who are not here today to consider the Bill. I suggest that the Committee Stage be fixed for next week and that the Minister should look for all Stages on that day.

Mr. Traynor

I am agreeable to that.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, October 28th.