Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Oct 1959

Vol. 177 No. 4

Funds of Suitors Bill, 1959—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. T. Lynch

I move:—

Before subsection (3) to insert the following new subsection:—

(3) (a) No sum intended to be applied for or towards the rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre, Dublin, shall be paid out of the Capital Fund until:—

(i) the National Theatre Society Limited shall make such alterations in its Memorandum and Articles of Association and take such other steps as may be recommended by a Committee which shall be appointed by the Minister consisting of the Director of An Chomhairle Ealaíon and eleven other persons; or

(ii) such alterations are made in the ownership and management of the Abbey Theatre, Dublin, as may be recommended by a Committee which shall be appointed by the Minister consisting of the Director of An Comhairle Ealaíon and eleven other persons.

(b) Of the ordinary members of the Committee three shall be authors of plays, three shall be actors, three shall be persons whom the Minister considers to be representative of Irish cultural interests and two shall be persons experienced in the management of theatres.

My colleague Deputy Ryan and I put down this amendment. On Second Reading, I attempted to discuss the policy of the Abbey Theatre and I was told to wait for this Stage. I insisted anyway and I succeeded in putting on the record part of what I wanted to say. I want to ascertain from the Minister the position as regards the Abbey Theatre. If this Theatre is built with public money to the amount of £250,000, will it be vested in the directors or the shareholders and directors of the old Abbey Theatre?

Mr. S. Flanagan

Is this amendment relevant? Has it been ruled relevant?

Mr. T. Lynch

It has not been ruled irrelevant.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor)

I am not certain. I cannot answer the question on the spur of the moment. I should require notice.

Mr. T. Lynch

It is a very important question.

Mr. McGilligan

What is the intention?

Mr. T. Lynch

It deals with £250,000 of public money.

Mr. Traynor

I think I said in opening that it will be put into the Capital Fund and it will be withdrawn from that, on, I presume, the request of the Minister for Finance, but I cannot answer the question straight away as to whether that complete sum will be handed over to the Abbey directors. It will be handed over only for the definite purpose of the building of the new Abbey Theatre and cannot be used for any other purpose. I think that is what the Deputy has in mind.

Mr. T. Lynch

Not exactly. I want to make it quite clear that I have no objection to the rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre as soon as possible but I want to know when the £250,000 is handed over to the Abbey Theatre for rebuilding, who will own the Abbey Theatre?

Mr. Traynor

The present ownership will be carried on. It will not change, in any respect, the ownership of the Abbey Theatre.

Mr. T. Lynch

May I take it then that we are actually giving a present of £250,000 to the present directors of the Abbey?

Mr. Traynor

We are making a grant of the money to the Abbey. Theatre for the purpose of rebuilding on the old site.

Mr. Ryan

Are you not giving something worth a quarter of a million pounds? This new property will be an asset to the national theatre and an asset to the present shareholders. Admittedly, under the Memorandum and Articles of Association, they are not entitled to make a profit——

Mr. Traynor

Are we to have a sort of spasmodic discussion? If the amendment is moved, I can perhaps reply at a greater length.

Mr. T. Lynch

I have moved the amendment as set out on the Order Paper. I would say that the policy of the management of the Abbey Theatre has not commended itself to people who are interested in the theatre in Ireland and it has not recommended itself to the people who work in the theatre in Ireland. The Minister said of course that we could look back on the old Abbey and mention names like Lady Gregory, Synge and O'Casey. They are no longer there. O'Casey is still alive but he left the Abbey Theatre. There was a great tradition, but the policy that has been carried on for some years past has not done anything to revive that tradition. As a matter of fact, it has stifled it and exasperated many people so that they left the Abbey. Groups of Abbey actors left and set up in other theatres in Dublin.

The reason my attention was drawn to this is that I have some interest in the theatre. The Wexford Theatre Royal was closed—I mentioned this on Second Reading—and it was necessary to try to revive that theatre. A group of people got together and did me the honour of asking me to be chairman. We opened the theatre and we did not come here to look for money. If that theatre were burned down, I am sure the Dáil would not build a new one—nor could we expect it to do so—and hand it over to me.

I admit all the time that the Abbey Theatre is a great institution so far as its name is concerned. I am not jealous of the fact that we are putting up £250,000 of public money which is to be taken from the funds of suitors, but I think that as a public representative the Minister should take steps or precautions to see that the Abbey Theatre is properly run as a national theatre.

I might as well say what my idea of a national theatre is and I should like the Minister to take special note of this. The Abbey Theatre began in the 1920s after getting a subsidy from the Government. Touring companies were sent down the country and at that time they did a great deal of good for the Irish theatre. There is a great amateur theatrical movement all over the country. As I say, they sent touring companies around the country. There was always a certain amount of amateur theatricals in the country but the standard was very low. I admit that the fact that professionals went to the smaller towns and smaller centres in Ireland gave the amateur theatrical movement the polish it has had in rural areas. I have been present at their performances. I have seen people drive long distances to come to see them. I have heard their comments on them—of how they put it over, how their entrances, exits and technique were accomplished.

All that no longer exists. The Abbey Theatre Company now say they are tied to the "Queens." I have a letter here which they sent when we asked them to come to Waterford. I have quoted this letter before. They said they would not be able to come down to go on tour.

"... 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."

It looks as if they are undermanned and understaffed. If they are, and if they are not getting money and if they are not able to make it pay, I must say I never heard of this House refusing to increase their subsidy if they wanted it.

That letter gives me the impression that the Abbey Theatre is on crutches and would not be able to stagger down the country. It looks to me as if it would be in danger of falling asunder before getting to Waterford or Wexford or any other place. It would be a wonderful thing, now that there are so many smaller theatres down the country, if the Abbey Theatre could send its company on tour and give the people down the country the chance of comparing their performances with those of the Abbey Theatre company. It has been said to me that the reason the Abbey do not now go on tour is that they would be afraid to have their performances seen by the people down the country.

Do you think the policy of the Abbey Theatre is a good policy, the policy that has turned away three Irish plays that have made the international stage within the past 12 months? There is no courage in their policy. I do not expect the Abbey Theatre to put on success after success. I would rather see them stage a play on a Monday and have to take it off on a Thursday night, and do that a good few times, because, by that method of trial and error, they would eventually find a success. They have become so cagey that they will put on practically nothing that is new. Plays are being sent to them and are constantly rejected.

Deputy Moloney praised the Abbey to the skies when speaking here the other day. He claimed he comes from the constituency that has made a great mark in the amateur theatre. I suppose he was referring to Sive. He must know something about the theatre—he is coming into the House now—or it must be his claim that because Sive was produced in Kerry, it is rather wonderful.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

I dislike interrupting the Deputy but he seems to be speaking in very general terms.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am afraid I shall have to ask the Chair to bear with me.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

This is the Committee Stage.

Mr. T. Lynch

When I wanted to speak like this on the Second Reading, I was told to wait for the Committee Stage.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy was ruled out of order. I gather the amendment is in order? Is the amendment in order?

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

As far as I know, it is, but I am not discussing the amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

The matter discussed on the amendment was ruled out of order on the Second Stage. It seems funny that it is now in order. However, I am sure it is in order, on the ruling.

Mr. S. Flanagan

It is creating a very dangerous precedent to rule this amendment in order. This is a very narrow Bill. The question of the policy of the directors of the Abbey Theatre is not relevant.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Surely when the Chair has ruled, it is no longer within the province of the House to express an opinion?

Mr. S. Flanagan

I am accepting the ruling but I submit it is creating a dangerous precedent.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

It is the difference between an amendment being in or out of order and a discussion on it. I am waiting to hear the discussion on the amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Moloney

I think and I respectfully say that the amendment that has been submitted here is entirely out of order.

Mr. McGilligan

Well, well!

Mr. Moloney

I am entitled to say so. Am I correct in my assumption?

Mr. Corish

How often does the Acting-Chairman have to say it is in order?

Mr. Moloney

If the Acting-Chairman says it is in order, I accept his ruling but I still submit it is going very wide. This is in respect of the provision of moneys to erect a building. We are attacking the personnel of a committee of management of an institution.

Mr. Corish

The Deputy is making a speech.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am not attacking any personnel.

Mr. McGilligan

The amendment is in order.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am glad there is only one man in the Chair.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

I am waiting to hear a discussion on the amendment.

Mr. T. Lynch

The last time, I had to put up with three or four chairmen, too. As I was saying, I thought it was strange that a Deputy coming from the constituency that produced a play such as Sive would not be on the same side as I am.

Mr. Moloney

That is why I wanted to indicate my point of view. The difference is that I come from the county which has produced Sive and that I know what I am talking about.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy must have produced it or written it or been responsible for it. I wanted to say that I thought the Deputy would resent the fact that the Abbey had thrown Sive out into the road.

Mr. Moloney

That is incorrect. They never threw it out. The Deputy should be made withdraw that allegation because it is incorrect.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

If Deputy Lynch would keep to the amendment and not go into so much detail——

Mr. T. Lynch

I am keeping to the amendment. I am not making an attack. I am saying that the Abbey Theatre has not been run properly.

Mr. Moloney

Tell us why, and tell us how.

Mr. T. Lynch

We are giving away £250,000. If this £250,000 were being split up and given to Cork, Wexford, Waterford and Kerry there would be some strings tied on to it. Why are there no strings tied on to it now? Do Deputies think so little of £250,000 that they can just dismiss it and turn it over to a board that has proved over the years that they are not running the Abbey Theatre as it should be run?

I am sorry that the discussion on this amendment has taken the turn it did. It was through no fault of mine. In the interests of the Abbey Theatre— I say the Abbey Theatre, not the National Theatre Society of Ireland which they call themselves, because they are no longer the National Theatre —and in order to revive the great spirit of the old Abbey Theatre, I appeal to the Minister to see to it that when this building for which we are to give £250,000 is erected, this dead hand policy which has been carried on for years now by the Abbey Theatre will come to an end.

Mr. Moloney

I ask the Minister not to accept this amendment because there is no purpose in it. I was hoping the mover of the amendment would give us some good reasons as to why the Abbey Theatre management should be reorganised. The amendment asks that the funds which it is proposed to provide be not made available until:

"(i) the National Theatre Society Limited shall make such alterations in its Memorandum and Articles of Association and take such other steps as may be recommended by a Committee which shall be appointed by the Minister consisting of the Director of An Chomhairle Ealaíon and eleven other persons; or

(ii) such alterations are made in the ownership and management of the Abbey Theatre, Dublin, as may be recommended by a Committee which shall be appointed by the Minister consisting of the Director of An Comhairle Ealaíon and eleven other persons."

One would naturally assume that the present management of the Abbey Theatre was a body subject to a great deal of public criticism and was not functioning in accordance with the general requirements and wishes of the people. I expected the Deputy to make a case on those lines. I was agreeably surprised to find that he made no general allegations against the efficiency of the management of the Abbey or the National Theatre Society, Limited, as it is known.

We find critics in all walks of life. In relation to the programmes presented by Radio Éireann people, well informed people indeed, will occasionally make wild criticisms. In most cases of that kind you will find the critics fail to supply the specific reasons why they criticise a programme or a particular dramatic performance. The same applies in respect of the Abbey Theatre. I hear many people in dramatic circles particularly, say the Abbey Theatre are not fulfilling the functions which have been assigned to them. Those people as a rule have no idea of the general policy which obtains by virtue of experience over the years.

As regards the personnel of the Abbey Theatre management, they are men of outstanding integrity and ability with a first-class national background. They have come from different parts of the country and have rendered in their own time outstanding service to the nation in many spheres. They have gone among the people and they have various means of feeling the pulse of the people in relation to drama of which they have been appointed to take charge. I understand the directors are men who are co-opted from time to time with the exception of one director who represents the Government because of the fact that the Abbey has been given a State subsidy over the past 30 or 35 years.

I do not wish to go into the personalities of these directors as such, but I am sure most Deputies know their background as well as I do. They may not be performing the duties assigned to them to the satisfaction of everybody. That would be too much to expect but there is at least an obligation on anybody who attempts to make that charge against their policy to specify even in some general way where they are failing in their duty.

The play "Sive" has been mentioned as having been rejected by the Abbey Theatre. It has been said that many people were annoyed because of that decision by the Abbey. I happen to represent the constituency where "Sive" was first produced and I can tell the House that there is no truth in the suggestion that the management of the Abbey refused to put "Sive" on their programme. Evidently at one stage a free-lance critic in the reading Committee of the Abbey happened to get a copy——

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Palmer)

There can be no discussion on plays or such matters.

Mr. Moloney

I must accept your ruling but it is a statement of fact that the management of the Abbey Theatre did not reject "Sive." In fact they accepted the play and had it performed here in Dublin with the Listowel cast as they had done in the case of a Gaelic play from Donegal some years previously.

I am not inclined to take up the attitude that the Abbey is perfect. No human organisation is and I am quite sure the management of the Abbey would be quite happy to have suggestions made to them, on matters in connection with which they do not seem to please a small section of the people, by those interested in drama and other types of culture which the Abbey is supposed to foster.

I suggest we should be helpful in this matter and I feel that perhaps Deputy Lynch may be trying to be helpful. He appears to be a man who knows more about drama than I or most other Deputies do. I think he could be very helpful if he gave specific instances of where the Abbey directorate appeared to be lacking in matters of policy. I am sure the Abbey would be glad to consider any worthwhile suggestions in that regard. They are doing a very difficult job and, when it comes to criticising them, the criticism should be specific. I appeal to Deputy Lynch and also to Deputy Ryan to try and direct their criticism on those lines.

Mr. Coogan

I should like the Minister to attach one string to this expenditure of £250,000 of public money. People all over the country, north, south, east and west, have to contribute to the Abbey and therefore I should like that string to be attached to let the Abbey know that they must give greater encouragement to the amateur stage throughout the country. Where are they to draw from but from the amateur stage? The Abbey has now become a clearing station for the films and rightly so. They have produced some of the finest film actors in the world and I am proud to say that at least two of them came from my own town. I refer to Mr. Seán McGlory and Miss Siobhán McKenna. They came from the Taidhbhairc in Galway and worked their way up from the amateur stage.

There are areas throughout the country in which there are good amateur character actors. In fact, we have them in this House but they do not pull the curtains often enough here; that is the trouble. I should like to see the rest of the country getting a fair crack of the whip by the encouragement of the amateur stage. They have not been given that encouragement up to the present and I should like that string to be attached.

Mr. Ryan

I would ask the House not to suggest to Deputy Lynch, myself or anybody else to launch an attack on the Abbey directors. I do not think it desirable that this House should put itself in the position of dramatic critic. But looking back over the last ten, 20 or 30 years of the Abbey, surely Deputies will agree with me that there has been widespread criticism of the existing management of the Abbey. Whether the criticism is right or wrong is not a matter which this House is qualified to determine but we would not be doing our duty were we to ignore completely all the criticism, much of which has come from people as well qualified, if not better qualified than the directors of the Abbey to say what has happened. I think it a most undesirable development for this House to give £250,000 to a small group which has been criticised right, left and centre for many years past. That is the whole purpose of the amendment.

What have the directors of the Abbey to fear? What have any lovers of the Abbey to fear? Might I say in passing, lest anybody question my motives, that there was hardly a play produced in the Abbey over the past ten years that I have not seen. I suppose I shall continue to go there despite all the mediocrity. The fact is that they have nothing to fear if things are run as they should be run. Is it that some people, including the directors of the Abbey, believe that criticism might be forthcoming from the body consisting of three dramatists, three actors, three persons representative of Irish cultural interests and two persons experienced in the management of theatre?

I know that I speak for Deputy Lynch when I say that we who put down this amendment have no objection whatsoever if a committee is constituted in some other way, or if the members of this committee are drawn from a different type of people. I believe that when Dáil Eireann is giving £250,000 to a private company, that should not be done until public uneasiness has been allayed. I ask the House to consider for a moment what the position would be if there never had been an Abbey and a Minister came in here asking us to vote £250,000 for the establishment of a National Theatre. Would the House not ask how the theatre was to be run? Would there not be a suggestion that it might be run in some one way better than another? That is the objective of this amendment to ensure that the best possible scheme of ownership and management is utilised.

The amendment refers to the Memorandum and Articles of Association which, as Deputies know, are the constitution which governs any limited company. Amongst some of the undesirable things in the Articles of Association, which were inserted because of criticism, is one providing that a majority of directors can get rid of any other director without stating their reasons.

Mr. Moloney

Is that not in the Articles of Association of every company?

Mr. Ryan

No, allow me to differ. The reason some directors were got rid of was that they dared to criticise those who, for the time being, were holding the managing positions. That is most undesirable. We should not hand over £250,000 to a very small group. At the moment I believe there are only three directors and they are to have the sole say as to what should be put on in the national theatre. In addition, there is a proviso which would not be tolerated anywhere else. That is that no shareholder shall inspect the books and accounts of the company without the specific permission of the directors. The reason for that is that two of the largest shareholders are directors who were dismissed. They were not even allowed to examine the accounts of the company in which they were shareholders.

There is another provision in the Articles under which when some directors in the past protested again and again, and then as a means of making further protest absented themselves from meetings, because they did not get the prior permission of the other directors, they got the order of the boot.

The question is: should we hand over a quarter of a million pounds until these disputes are resolved and until public uneasiness is allayed? That is the whole motive behind the putting down of this amendment and if we felt sure some steps would be taken—if not of this kind, of some similar kind—to allay public uneasiness, then the amendment might be withdrawn. I think it is very necessary and desirable that we should get some assurance from the Government that this money will not be handed over until there is a complete and impartial investigation of things as they stand.

As I say, I am not going into criticisms of managements because I think it is undesirable. That is a matter for a committee of specialists such as has been suggested in the amendment, but might I just say, in passing, that the founders of the Abbey Theatre said it was being founded because of: "Our desire to bring upon the stage the deeper thoughts and emotions of Ireland. We will show that Ireland is not the home of buffoonery and of easy sentiment ... but the home of an ancient idealism."

I, and many other members of the House who have gone to the Abbey Theatre in recent years, have seen very little more than buffoonery and easy sentiment. The Abbey has departed completely from the idealism of its early years. The reason may be that the Directors wanted to make the Abbey a paying proposition, but, if we are to have a national theatre worthy of the ancient idealism of which Yeats and Lady Gregory spoke, then we must ensure that it is run in a manner befitting the dignity of the ideals which it is supposed to live up to at all times.

On that account, I would ask the House to accept the amendment in the atmosphere in which it is put forward. It is put forward in order that the Abbey may achieve the ideals for which it was founded, and in order that public uneasiness in regard to the existing Abbey directorship may be allayed. If, on investigation, it is allayed, then they are completely right in what they are doing and surely it would be a desirable thing that that should be said by such a committee as is proposed? Let us trust that when the Abbey is reconstructed, the great words of Yeats will be fulfilled.

Mr. Healy

It seems to me that those who put down this amendment have now got the House discussing the reconstruction of the personnel of the Abbey Theatre board of directors rather than the reconstruction of the physical Abbey Theatre building. Personally, I regret to see that happen because those of us who are completely outside the knowledge, shared by the last speaker, of the difficulties between members of the board are anxious to see the Abbey Theatre, the physical structure, rebuilt, and that as soon as possible.

We have heard certain statements made today and it would seem as if controversy and criticism are now being aimed against the Abbey Theatre for the first time. I make bold to say that since it was founded, the Abbey Theatre never escaped criticism and controversy from a very voluble section of the people. From my experience, though it be only a brushing one with artists, actors and theatricals, it would seem that they find it much more difficult to compromise with each other's opinions and compose their differences than even politicians. Therefore, I cannot see anything diametrically wrong in having differences of opinion between those of artistic bent.

I know that the Abbey Theatre has refused plays which were afterwards performed successfully in other places. The directors may not have taken everything they should have taken, but we have only to read today's papers to see that a commercial theatre in Dublin had to take the unprecedented step of taking off a play that was put on only this week.

As a Parliament, we would be well advised to do everything possible to see that the physical Abbey Theatre building is put up as soon as possible. If we have criticisms to offer afterwards, we shall have an opportunity when we are dealing with the Vote on Account. If the directors are holding something from the shareholders, then we have a Government director and they cannot hide anything from him. We can find out anything we are entitled to know through him. I believe that those who put down the amendment did so in good fath, but I think they are doing something which is diverting from the purposes of the Bill.

I come from a provincial constituency and I am not at all satisfied with the policy of the Abbey Theatre in not sending plays and the company on tour. Like Deputy Lynch, I should be anxious that they should do that. I say this not from any desire to hinder the management of the theatre here in Dublin, but I do not subscribe to the criticism that they do not send their players to the provincial towns because they are afraid they may meet more than their match, and that the people would not think they were up to standard. I think the standard of acting has not deteriorated. The plays may have, but the acting has not. It is a national asset, at home and abroad.

The sooner we put up the physical structure the better, and then we shall have an opportunity to see that the theatre is run on lines—not those we would suggest ourselves because, as somebody said, we are not competent to direct theatre policy, but on the lines of those who are competent to make suggestions. In that sense, I would ask the movers of the amendment to withdraw it so that it would seem there was no haggling about the erection of the physical structure of the Abbey Theatre.

Mr. T. Lynch

We are not endeavouring to halt the building of the Abbey Theatre. We are anxious to have it rebuilt but we are most anxious also to have it competently run. I should explain to Deputy Healy that the reason we are doing this to-day is that for some time I have been endeavouring to break up this facade that surrounds the Abbey, and which has made it into a kind of sacred cow about which no one dare say anything.

Long ago I was ruled out of order when I put down a question to the Minister for Finance regarding the subsidy to the Abbey Theatre. I was told that I could raise the matter when this Bill was introduced. Then when I did raise it, on the introduction of the Bill, I was ruled out of order by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Now, before any Government are committed, we should have an opportunity to say something and I for one should like to get a little more information.

I should like to ask the Minister in whom is the new Abbey Theatre to be vested, and I should also like to know who represents the Government on the Abbey Theatre board of directors?

Mr. Traynor

Whether this amendment is in order or not does not greatly concern me. What I am concerned about at the moment is what is in the Bill and only what is in the Bill. I do not therefore propose, as a matter of principle, to lend myself to a discussion on the proposals contained in the amendment or to discuss now the questions of policy or the management of the Abbey Theatre regarding which there is no proposal in the Bill.

Successive Governments have indicated their agreement that funds should be provided for a new building and we are trying to implement that view. I know that there has been criticism of the Abbey. Hardly any section of the community running the business of amusements or catering for the public as the Abbey does, escapes every form of criticism. The Abbey must expect to come under criticism simply because it has to reject so many plays that are submitted to the board. In my opinion, there can be only one deciding factor as to whether a play is suitable to go on the Abbey stage or not and it stands to reason that when plays are rejected, the people will be annoyed. The plays of many persons who have since become successful producers of plays at the Abbey have been rejected. I understand that at least one play by Yeats was rejected. I understand that plays of Lennox Robinson were rejected.

Mr. Ryan

The play of W.B. Yeats was rejected when it was submitted anonymously. When he submitted it under his own name, it was put on the boards.

Mr. Traynor

I am trying to disabuse the minds of people who have spoken here of the idea that there is anything that can be regarded as free from criticism. The Deputies, the Government and the Opposition are not free from criticism. We must all accept criticism, whether or not it is justified.

As I said earlier, I am not concerned with whether this amendment is in order or not. I am opposing it, of course. All I am concerned with is the passing of this Bill as quickly as possible in order to be able to provide the opportunity to have the Abbey Theatre rebuilt. If we can get on with the task, we are fulfilling a number of useful purposes. We are creating employment and providing something that has been delayed now for, I think, seven years. To accept the amendment would be to delay it for probably another year or two.

Mr. T. Lynch

Why?

Mr. Traynor

There is no reason whatever why this amendment should be accepted. I am opposing it on the grounds I have stated.

Mr. T. Lynch

I asked the Minister if he could tell me who represents the Government on the present Abbey Theatre Board?

Mr. Traynor

I think it is Mr. Wilmot.

Mr. T. Lynch

I have no objection to Mr. Wilmot; I just wanted to know who it was. I have something here that says there are only three directors —a letter dated 24th August, 1959.

Mr. Traynor

No, I think Mr. Wilmot was nominated to replace Mr. O'Connor who was a former director.

Mr. T. Lynch

Mr. Frank O'Connor was not a Government nominee. He was a shareholder in his own right.

Mr. Traynor

At any rate, Mr. Wilmot is the Government representative. That is the answer to the question the Deputy asked.

Mr. T. Lynch

We shall give you the Bill—we do not want to delay this. We did not come in here to cast any mud at the Abbey directors. We do not want to have this cloak of criticism thrown over this business. I would appeal to the Minister to have a conversation with the Abbey Theatre directors of the present time and, as the Minister who is to hand over this £250,000, to see to it that there will be some safeguard.

It has been said that the Abbey has always been subject to criticism. We are always subject to criticism but when the criticism becomes a storm, even the Government must listen and the criticism that has been storming around the Abbey for the past ten years should be listened to. It is not just a case of criticism from people who had plays rejected. Great artists had to leave the Abbey; great people of the theatre had to leave. They were pushed out of the directorate. There is an intolerance in the Abbey that is not good for it. I would remind the Minister of what my colleague Deputy Ryan said, that if there were no Abbey and we were to build a national theatre we would appoint a board and if somebody——

Mr. Healy

We shall never do it; we would never build such a theatre, if it was never there.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy's people are going to build one in Cork.

Mr. Healy

A civic theatre, not a national theatre.

Mr. T. Lynch

There are many people who have great spirit. The people of Dublin wanted to build the national theatre, the Abbey Theatre, after it had been burned, but the directors spurned them.

We are not coming here just to put up criticism against individuals. I have never met any of these gentlemen. I want the Minister and the Deputies to look upon this national theatre as the treasure that we all cherish. I want them to look at it from the business point of view that we are putting up £250,000. After that, if the Abbey Theatre is run and is losing money, I shall be one of the first to come in here and support a Vote that will raise the subsidy.

I would not have the Abbey Theatre cutting itself down at all; but we must judge by results. Surely we must look at the results of the past 20 years and ask were they good results? No rockets were sent up as had been sent up in the years when it was storming. A dead hand seems to be there for the past 20 years. That is the only reason I and my colleague have taken this action. I had an enormous post about this. An enormous number of people approached me about it.

One thing about which I am disappointed is that Deputies did not consider it worth their while to speak on this or even to say that they wanted to see the policy changed or that they were prepared to stand over the policy here today. I am surprised also that the Deputies are so lightly voting £250,000 without coming in to ask some questions. We shall not delay the Minister. The Minister can have his Bill—all Stages—as was agreed here when we took the Second Reading. Again, I would say to him, even at this late stage, to accept the amendment although he says he will not accept it. That is all right but I say that he should take this matter up with the present Abbey directors and with his colleagues at Cabinet level. I think his colleagues might direct him to say we are entitled to have a greater representation on the Board of the Abbey than we have to-day.

Mr. Ryan

Might I mention a possible solution? We are as anxious as the Minister to see the new Abbey built with all possible speed. Is there anything to prevent the Abbey being built but not handed over to the National Theatre Company until a satisfactory reconstruction of directors takes place? I think that would be the anxiety. It would help to allay the fears of people that the theatre might be handed over to the wrong people.

Mr. Traynor

I could not give any such undertaking. Arising out of the matter to which Deputy Lynch referred, I want to make it clear—I am sure it is clear—that the £250,000 granted in this Bill is for the specific purpose of building a theatre and for no other purpose. It cannot be used for any other purpose. I want to make clear also the other point about which the Deputy seemed to be concerned. With regard to the directors, I was correct in saying that Séamus Wilmot was the representative of the Government. Then there is Mr. Ernest Blythe, Mr. Gabriel Fallon and Mr. Roibeárd Ó Fearacháin.

Mr. McGilligan

What is the third name?

Mr. Traynor

The names are: Séamus Wilmot, the Government representative; Mr. Ernest Blythe; Mr. Gabriel Fallon and Mr. Roibeárd Ó Fearacháin.

Mr. T. Lynch

How long has Mr. Fallon been a director?

Mr. Healy

Twelve months I suppose.

Mr. Traynor

I could not say.

Mr. T. Lynch

I have just given a letter to the usher which I got from the Abbey. It mentions Mr. Ernest Blythe, Mr. Wilmot and Mr. Ó Fearacháin.

Mr. Traynor

I think that Mr. Gabriel Fallon was the latest appointee. I think that was only a matter of months.

Mr. Coogan

Would the Minister convey to the Abbey the views expressed here to-day that they should develop latent talent with a view to giving it a show?

Mr. Traynor

I have no doubt that the Abbey directors will be sufficiently concerned about this debate to read up what has been said. From that point of view, I think it is the best posible way in which they could be informed.

Mr. T. Lynch

You would not move them with gunpowder.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McGilligan

On Second Reading, I asked the Minister a question. As I understand it, this money will be paid into the Capital Fund established by the Central Fund Act, 1956. Then the Minister is to apply the moneys from time to time. The Minister is not the Minister for Justice but the Minister for Finance, as I understand it. Secondly, I drew the attention of the Minister for Justice to the fact that once it fits into the Central Fund Act, 1956, there surely has to be each year an account of the payments into the Capital Fund and the payments out and that such an account has to be prepared by the Minister for Finance and given to the Comptroller and Auditor General for his report.

It is further provided by the Central Fund Act that the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General must be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I cannot believe that the £250,000 will be paid over all at one go. The payments will be made in such a way that they will go into two financial years at least. That means that there will be two reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General which will give the House another opportunity of discussion. I think that is the situation but I should like to have it confirmed.

Mr. Traynor

In answer to the Deputy's question, the requirements of the law will be carried out. The Deputy asked on Second Reading—I had not the figures then—how the amounts accumulated in the Dormant Fund. As a matter of interest, I asked the Department to look these figures up. For September, 1949, they amounted in the aggregate to some £610,500. In September, 1954, they increased to £721,800 and in September, 1959, they amounted to £860,000, the figure we were discussing. The average increase would appear to have been about £25,000.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.