Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Jul 1966

Vol. 223 No. 12

Funds of Suitors Bill, 1966: Second Stage.

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

The purpose of the Bill is to enable a sum not exceeding £450,000 to be withdrawn from the funds of suitors and applied towards the cost of rebuilding the Abbey Theatre and the Cork Opera House.

The funds of suitors are the cash and securities belonging to suitors and other persons which have been transferred to or paid into or deposited with the High Court. These funds arise from many sources. They include statutory deposits made by insurance companies, banks, trade unions, auctioneers and house agents, moneys lodged by defendants in certain types of actions, funds of wards of court, trustee funds and moneys lodged in administration suits. Part of the funds is represented by unclaimed dividends and balances which have been accumulating over a long period. These are known as dormant funds and may be defined more precisely as balances in accounts which have not been active for 15 years or more. The funds of suitors are under the control of the High Court, and subject to that control, are managed by, and stand in the name of, the Accountant of the Courts of Justice.

The total liability of the Accountant in respect of funds of suitors on 30th April, 1966, was £17,640,000, of which dormant funds amounted to £998,000. Assets held by the Accountant, consisting of cash and securities, amounted to £16,812,000. The difference between the amount of the liabilities and the amount of the assets on hand, £828,000, represents the aggregate of the moneys which have been withdrawn from the funds of suitors over the past 200 years under the authority of various Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Oireachtas. All these Acts indemnified suitors for any loss which they might sustain by reason of the withdrawals, and these indemnities are backed by the Central Fund. Another way of saying this is that portion of the funds of suitors amounting to £828,000 is not represented by cash or securities held by the Accountant but simply by the liability of the Central Fund to indemnify suitors against any loss.

Moneys withdrawn from the funds of suitors under Acts passed prior to the establishment of the Oireachtas were applied for such purposes as building and improving the Courts of Justice and enlarging the Law Library. Withdrawals from the funds were authorised by the Oireachtas in 1959 and again in 1963. The funds of Suitors Act, 1959, enabled a total of £323,000 to be withdrawn for three purposes, namely, to provide assistance towards 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 fund for the maintenance of the Society's Library. The Funds of Suitors Act, 1963, authorised the release of a sum of £50,000 to help finance the rebuilding of the Cork Opera House.

The sums withdrawn to date from the funds of suitors, amounting, as I have said, to £828,000, have virtually exhausted the dormant funds. Depreciation in the value of dormant securities has accounted for a further reduction of £95,000, so that the balance of dormant funds remaining is now only £75,000. Accordingly, the bulk of the withdrawal of £450,000 proposed in this Bill will be made not against the dormant balances but against the current funds standing to the credit of suitors in accounts less than 15 years old. Deputies will, how ever, appreciate that, from the practical standpoint, all funds vested in the Accountant of the Courts of Justice, whether dormant or otherwise, have the same standing; the so called dormant funds are distinguished from the others merely for accounting convenience. The fact that the dormant balances will be overdrawn is of no practical significance, as the indemnity to be provided by the Minister for Finance under section 3 of the Bill will afford complete protection to suitors in respect of moneys withdrawn from the funds held by the Accountant.

The money to be withdrawn under the Bill will actually be taken from the sizeable cash balance which is maintained by the Accountant in a current account in the Bank of Ireland. This cash balance amounts at the present time to £860,000 and is constantly growing. Apart altogether from the fact that suitors will enjoy a complete indemnity, I am fully satisfied that the sum of £450,000 may safely be withdrawn from this cash balance.

As I have mentioned, part of the funds of suitors has already been applied to meeting the cost of rebuilding the Abbey Theatre and the Cork Opera House. Under the Funds of Suitors Act, 1959, £250,000 was allocated for the Abbey, and under the last Act, passed in 1963, £50,000 was advanced for the Opera House. Estimates of cost for the two projects, furnished when these Acts were being prepared, indicated that the amounts in question would be sufficient to enable the projects to be completed. However, events proved otherwise, making necessary the further payments provided for in this Bill.

In the case of the Abbey, the estimated cost of rebuilding was put at £235,000 in 1959, with a further £20,000 for professional fees and an unspecified sum for furniture other than seating. It was accordingly considered that an allocation of £250,000 from the funds of suitors would suffice for the purpose. However, rising costs since 1959 have rendered that estimate obsolete. The successful tender, accepted in June, 1962, was for £310,000 for the Abbey and the "shell" of the Peacock Theatre, with an additional £34,000 for fees. The cost of the work is now put at £555,200 to which must be added £95,000 for the Peacock. These sums include professional fees; and the figure for the Peacock covers the full equipment of this theatre. This gives a total cost of £650,000, leaving a gap of £400,000 over and above what has already been made available. Allowing a small margin for contingencies, section 2 (3) of the Bill provides for a further withdrawal from the funds of suitors of not more than £415,000 for this purpose.

The increases in the cost of the Abbey and Peacock Theatres, though substantial, are inescapable. They are due to increases in the cost of wages and materials, the effects of the building strike of 1964, changes in plans involving the installation of additional stage equipment, extra dressingroom accommodation and an increase in the height of the stage tower, special reinforcement work on the basement and additional work on adjoining property.

The Abbey authorities have no funds which might be used to meet the increased costs. The sum of £30,000 received in insurance following the fire which destroyed the old Abbey has long since been eaten up by current deficits. The directors of the Abbey are, however, prepared to arrange a public appeal for funds to help meet the cost of the Peacock Theatre, although they are not very hopeful that this will bring in any substantial amount. Section 2 (4) of the Bill provides that any sums raised in this way by the Abbey authorities will be paid into the Capital Fund, while section 2 (5) provides that the Minister for Finance shall repay to the funds of suitors any sums paid to the Capital Fund which are not required for the purposes of the section.

The £250,000 made available under the Funds of Suitors Act, 1959, had been spent by July, 1965, and as any further withdrawal from the funds would involve fresh legislation, it was decided that a Supplementary Estimate should be taken on the Vote for Miscellaneous Expenses to ensure that the work in progress might continue. On 21st July, 1965, the Dáil agreed to a Supplementary Estimate on this Vote in which a sum of £255,010 was included for this purpose. Approximately £185,000 has been issued to the Abbey from this provision. The Bill now before the House provides in section 2 (3) that this money will be refunded to the Exchequer. The rest of the money allocated under the Bill will be available to meet the balance of the cost of the project.

In the case of the Cork Opera House, the estimated cost of rebuilding was put at £200,000 in 1963, and it was on the basis of this estimate that the Funds of Suitors Act, 1963, provided for the allocation of a sum of £50,000 to supplement the moneys which had been raised from other sources for the project. As in the case of the Abbey, increases in costs occurred and the final cost of completion amounted to approximately £235,000. This left the Opera House Company to find a sum of £35,000. The directors were compelled to approach the Government for further aid. They felt there was little hope that a further appeal to the public would raise any significant sum, as £82,000 had already been subscribed from private sources. Again, as in the case of the Abbey, a further withdrawal from the funds of suitors would involve fresh legislation. Consequently, as the project was then nearing completion—the new Opera House was, in fact, opened on 31st October, 1965— and final bills were expected shortly, it was decided to take a Supplementary Estimate on the Vote for Miscellaneous Expenses. This was approved by the Dáil on 28th October, 1965, on the understanding that legislation to authorise a further withdrawal from the funds of suitors would be introduced and that any payment from the Vote would be recouped. In fact, a total of £11,514 has been issued under this provision and this amount will be refunded to the Exchequer.

The rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre and the rebuilding of the Cork Opera House are enterprises of national concern. It has been recognised that projects of this nature cannot in modern conditions be undertaken successfully without the patronage of the wealthy or of the State or local authorities. There is no doubt but that this is a most desirable form of public investment since it will provide suitable entertainment for our own people, provide employment for native artists and at the same time, constitute an atraction for tourists. The material needs of our citizens have been provided for increasingly in recent years and it is only right that the State should also help in the provision of these centres of entertainment in our two main cities.

In conclusion, may I once more draw the attention of the House to the fact that, as in the case of previous withdrawals from the funds of suitors, the Bill affords complete indemnity to suitors against any loss they might otherwise sustain as a result of the enactment of the proposed legislation.

I recommend the Bill to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading.

The proposal to provide additional funds to complete the restoration of the Abbey Theatre and the work of rebuilding the Cork Opera House follows the introduction of a measure in 1959 whereby the sums in the funds of suitors account of the court were made available for these purposes. It seemed to us that the method of providing finance for these two projects was an appropriate one, in so far as it avoided a direct draw on the Exchequer for purposes which normally might have to compete with other claims for State expenditure and which in the normal way might not secure ready approval or which, certainly, would have to compete on an unequal basis for the sums available.

At the same time, the world-wide reputation which the Abbey Theatre had and which everyone hopes will continue under the new Abbey is a valuable asset. The Abbey is valuable, not only from the point of view of providing entertainment for our own people and visitors but also for the purpose of providing employment for Irish artists and the consequential employment involved in theatre work. The same, to a lesser extent, can be said in the case of the Cork Opera House.

The method adopted of financing this proposal involves no direct State expenditure and has enabled the funds, some of which were dormant, to be used for this purpose while at the same time, in the event of claimants entitled to draw on the funds making and succeeding in substantiating their claims, the Minister for Finance, under the Act, guarantees to make good any deficiency that might arise in the funds for a short period, or in the event of a temporary inability of the sums available to the fund, to meet the actual claims.

In those circumstances, I want to refer to another similar use which was made of the funds available when the 1959 Act was passed. I do so because, normally, the type of expenditure involved might not be regarded as being directly the responsibility of the State and, in circumstances of a shortage of money for a variety of necessary projects, particularly building projects, might not be regarded as one which could legitimately be considered and certainly would be regarded as a project that would compete for the funds available only on a very unreal basis, as being one that would be unlikely to justify public expenditure, certainly in the sphere in which some of the activities are carried on.

On the other hand, the expenditure which was covered by the matter which I propose to mention, to a very considerable extent provides a service that is of a very special character and which could be regarded as relieving either the State or the universities of an obligation in that regard. The particular expenditure to which I refer was undertaken by the Benchers of the King's Inns in respect of the building known as the King's Inns, in Henrietta Street. As Deputies may be aware, the King's Inns is a very old building and provides for the education of students who wish to become barristers and, in addition, provides library facilities of a special kind. The library is one of the best legal libraries in the world, possibly the only exclusively legal library in this country. For that reason, it is necessary that the building should be in a proper state of repair. The buildings themselves are of well-known architectural distinction and have long been regarded as examples which have attracted and still attract tourists and visitors.

Some years ago the presence of dry rot was discovered in the buildings and steps were taken to eradicate it. Considerable expenditure was incurred in carrying out repairs and necessary restoration. Under the 1959 Act, it was decided that £70,000 would be made available out of the funds of suitors, of which I understand the greater portion was to be applied to recouping and defraying the expenditure incurred, or about to be incurred, on the renovation and repair of the buildings in the King's Inns and the balance to the creation of a capital endowment fund.

Subsequent to the passing of the Act and the granting of this sum, further dry not was discovered and this had to be eradicated. Meantime, building costs increased substantially over those prevailing when the original estimate was made. I understand the total expenditure between 1956 and 1965 on renovation, repair and decoration of the buildings, including the library, amounted to something over £93,000. The position, therefore, is that moneys which were made available have proved inadequate to cover the work carried out and at the same time provide the capital endowment fund established under it.

If the Society, the Benchers of the King's Inns, are to fulfil their functions, educational and otherwise, and maintain these buildings which have a world-wide reputation, it is necessary to recoup the capital fund of the society. Otherwise, it would be impossible for them to discharge their liability in respect of repairs or even to continue, even allowing for an increase in students' fees. The increase necessary would be entirely inordinate and excessive. Therefore, I urge the Minister and the Government to consider sympathetically the possibility of introducing an amendment at a later stage of the Bill to allow the further sum of approximately £50,000 which would be necessary.

In a measure of this kind, an amendment by a private Deputy would not be in order, nor would I propose normally an expenditure of this sort, but for the manner in which it is proposed to finance it. It would merely mean a further indent on the total sum in the funds of suitors account. As was mentioned by the Minister in his speech, the income from that fund is normally sufficient to meet in full the claims made on it. In fact the general experience is that over a period the fund builds up, that claims are not made or do not mature or in some cases are rejected. For whatever reason the income of the Account has over the years normally exceeded the claims made on it and the provision in this Bill is merely one for the purpose of ensuring that in the event of circumstances altering, and for a particular period the draw on the fund being in excess of income, the difference would be made good by the Minister for Finance.

I suggest that the Minister and the Government should sympathetically consider the expenditure involved and the work that has been carried out. Certain Deputies were invited to see the work last year. It was not certain then what the extra costs involved would be but those of us who had an opportunity of seeing the work appreciated the efforts that were made as well as the character and quality of the work undertaken. The general attitude of the Benchers was one of ensuring that the facilities available there would continue to be available to all who require them, and at the same time, that the buildings would be maintained in a proper state of repair. I should be glad, therefore, if the Minister would consider this matter between now and Committee Stage with a view to enabling the work to be completed, while at the same time allowing the Benchers sufficient funds to enable them to continue to have the Endowment Fund for the purposes for which it was established.

We are all very glad to have reached the stage when the Abbey will be restored in full to the nation. I am sure we are all very conscious of the tremendous prestige that accrued to the country from the beginning through the efforts of the small and dedicated group who founded the Abbey Theatre so many years ago and who promoted the drama at every possible opportunity, since before the turn of the century, it may be said. This Bill which provides money for the completion of the new Abbey will meet with the approval of the entire House. One can also express the hope that in the years ahead, the new Abbey Theatre will bring to Irish drama fame and glory as great as the old Abbey did in its day and that it will evoke, promote and encourage the genius of playwrights such as the great ones of the past who carried the name of Ireland in this sphere with honour literally to every stage in every country of the world.

In discussing this Bill, we should take the opportunity of going a little further and examining the position relating to the funds of suitors. It is very interesting to find the Minister revealing that the amount in the possession, as it were legally, of the Accountant of the High Court as at 30th April this year, was over £17½ million, which is the accumulation, as we know, of what could loosely be described as unclaimed moneys in court.

That is the total liability. There are not actual funds held in cash to that extent. The cash balance held by the accountant is in the region of £860,000. These are liabilities, some of which extend back over 200 years.

These are moneys owed to persons which were lodged in court at some time. What has happened to them, if they are not there?

Some of them are unclaimed.

They are there. What has happened to them?

They have been drawn on over the years.

They are due from the State. That is my point. Therefore, they can be said to be there. They must be there, if they are called for.

That is largely academic.

I agree. However, the point is that funds are here. This is a manner in which funds can be provided for proposals such as the Abbey Theatre and, as Deputy Cosgrave has instanced, for the improvement and maintenance of the King's Inns and for the Cork Opera House. I want to suggest that this particular avenue of finance should be explored in another way to see how far it can be utilised to benefit not just the Abbey Theatre but the theatre generally in this country. It was my intention to move an amendment to the Bill in order to secure a discussion on this on Committee Stage. I have just been informed by the Chair that my two amendments have been ruled out of order. They involved a proposal to allocate an additional £25,000 from the funds of suitors for the assistance of certain Irish theatrical productions. I tried to get the Minister's mind working along those lines. If these funds are used for the Abbey Theatre, beneficially and quite correctly, and in so far as they were used in other directions, nobody can find any fault with that. This Bill seemed to provide an opportunity for the Members of this House to say to the Minister that something should be done for the Irish theatre on a wider scale through the means of these funds.

As the Deputy's amendments have been ruled out of order, it might not be proper to pursue that line of argument on the Second Stage.

I shall not press the amendment. With respect, the amendment was ruled out because it was found unacceptable on the Committee Stage. With respect, I suggest that the Second Reading of this Bill permits a fairly wide scope for discussion. I imagine I might be allowed to make the point I wish to make which does not, in my view, go against the rules of order. I do not propose to go into detail.

Acting Chairman

The Bill authorises payments from the funds of suitors to certain specific purposes only. If the Deputy widens this into a discussion for support for the theatre generally——

I have no wish to dispute the ruling of the Chair. However, if that was so in my case, it was certainly so in the case of Deputy Cosgrave. I ask only for treatment similar to that accorded to Deputy Cosgrave who, rightly, in my view, made a plea in respect of what might be done with portion of the funds of suitors in so far as the King's Inns are concerned. If he was allowed to do that, why should I not be allowed to take the line I want to take, namely, to suggest to the Minister that the funds of suitors should be devoted to an extension of what he is actually doing in the Bill?

Acting Chairman

The Chair may have been wrong in not drawing the attention of Deputy Cosgrave to the same matter.

I should not think so. The precedent is there. Perhaps the Chair will kindly allow me to follow the precedent?

Acting Chairman

If the Deputy will confine himself as much as possible.

I do not propose to go outside the rules of order in this matter: I do not want to. However, I want to avail of the opportunity to try to induce the Minister—who, I am certain, is as interested in the promotion of the theatre as is anybody in this House—to think of what could be done in so far as assistance for that very important section of the theatre which exists outside the Abbey Theatre is concerned. Because of the difficulty of maintaining theatres by reason of expense, we have had many instances over the years of such enterprises falling by the wayside for lack of financial aid. We have the example of the Gaiety Theatre which happily is still with us but whose future is not at all assured. It is uncertain what will happen to it. There are many excellent theatrical companies which, because we are a small nation, very often find it impossible to make an economic success of their activities and are forced to wind them up. In this instance, it seems to me that there is an obligation on the Government to do what they can to help, to encourage and to keep alive the arts in so far as the theatre is concerned.

We have considerable funds available from the Shaw Bequest which are devoted to the National Gallery. I do not think we shall ever be sufficiently grateful to Shaw not alone for the moneys which are benefiting us in the artistic sense, in the shape of wonderful pictures which we have been able to buy, but also in the sense of future revenue that will come from his works.

The Deputy should not forget Rex Harrison.

I do not forget him. His was an excellent performance. They have done more for this country than a lot of people I see proclaiming their patriotism in this country.

Acting Chairman

The Minister should not incite the Deputy to pursue that line too far, interesting though it may be.

That is just by the way. The point I am trying to make is that we have great theatrical figures in this country. I think it can be said that we can present ourselves with this bouquet: some would consider it slightly malodorous but, nonetheless, I think we deserve to give it to ourselves. We are a nation not only interested in the drama but a pretty dramatic nation, too. We have artistes of very considerable talent at every level. It is one of our assets. When Irish people interested in the theatre go abroad wherever they take up the theatre they shine and, in the main, they get their training here. We have actors and actresses in our society who are amongst the very best in the world. I do not need to mention their names. They will spring to the mind of any person in this House or of any person who reads the papers at all.

We have often seen how difficult it is for these actors and actresses and for theatrical enterprises to keep going in Ireland. I am sure that many of us have felt—certainly I have—that it would be a very sound national investment if we could take whatever steps are open to us to ensure continuity of employment, continuity of production, and security in their work for these people. It boils down invariably to a question of money and that is why I raise the matter here. It appears to me that if the Minister is so minded, and I see every reason why he should be, he could employ the Funds of Suitors Bill at least to initiate a fund, perhaps a nominal fund of something in the nature of £25,000 or £30,000, to be administered by a body such as the Arts Council which would come to the aid of theatrical groups or, say, the Dublin Theatre Festival Committee, or people such as Equity which represents over 2,000 personnel in this very important industry, at times when such aid would be called for.

It is not necessary for me to dilate upon the importance of this branch— perhaps it might be argued or claimed that this was the most important branch—of dramatic endeavour, the section which has nothing whatever to do with the Abbey. It is not necessary for me to draw attention to the great tourist potential that lies herein. It can be said that the average tourist feels that the Irish theatre is something he must visit in order to see people like MacLiammoir, people with names which are internationally famous, and others as well, both actors and actresses. We should try to take some steps as a beginning to provide help for those people who have been working hard to maintain dramatic effort outside the Abbey.

I must emphasise that I am not criticising the provision of money for the Abbey Theatre. It is an excellent thing that it has been provided, but other countries, small countries, in Europe have seen it as their duty and as a good national investment to provide money annually to do what I am suggesting should be done here. Countries such as France, Germany and Great Britain provide subsidies from their Exchequers which vary from £2 million to £7 million annually to aid the theatre. We could not think in terms of such amounts but nonetheless it shows in a general way what we should be thinking of. In Holland, a small country, there is a theatre maintained by the State in practically every town exceeding 80,000 inhabitants. In Iceland, where there are 200,000 people, the national theatre is supported with an annual grant of £50,000. These people are not sentimentalists who love to revel in the theatre for its own sake. They are hardheaded people who know that this side of artistic activity constitutes a tremendous attraction for those who like to take their holidays abroad.

The Minister could give us some hope that these interests who have been struggling so hard to keep the drama alive will be helped. We have an obligation to these people who have done so much for the good name of Ireland. I would have no other opportunity of raising this matter and that is why I am raising it now. There is no reason why the Funds of Suitors should continue to be devoted only to those matters with which we have been concerned heretofore. It is very important that the King's Inns should be looked after properly and likewise the Abbey, and I will go so far as to include that darling of Deputy Corry's, the Cork Opera House, which should undoubtedly be looked after also, but there is no reason why drama outside the Abbey should not be catered for. I would ask the Minister to let us know if he will consider my suggestions, that is, to look at the fund to see if some of its money could be made available, at least as a start, to provide, say, £25,000 or £30,000 to a body like the Arts Council or some similar body with responsibility to afford help to drama groups which operate outside the Abbey Theatre. It is a simple request and it is something that must be done at some time. The Minister could carve a niche for himself in history if he were the first to set down that this, which is inevitable in any event, should be done.

(Cavan): I agree with the proposal to assist the restoration of the Abbey Theatre and the Cork Opera House, both of which were destroyed by fire some years ago. It is a very worthy object that money should be made available from public funds to assist in this excellent work. I suppose in this age of credit squeeze and shortage of money, it is fortunate that there is a precedent for falling back on the funds of suitors to provide the necessary money because if that precedent was not there, I could see see great difficulty in aiding these very worthy objects. Having said that, I should like to take this opportunity to make a point about the accumulations of unclaimed funds in the Accountant's Office in the High Court. I was not here for the Minister's speech but I gather that over the years the liability of the Accountant in respect of this fund is £17½ million and that at present there is to the credit of the fund some £800,000.

£860,000 in cash.

(Cavan): That leads me to believe that over a very long number of years something in excess of £16 million belonging to suitors has remained unclaimed and has been utilised under various Acts of Parliament for one purpose or another. I think an effort should be made from time to time to trace these suitors and make them aware of the fact that there is money standing to their credit in court, money which they can claim, if they establish their right to it. I do not suggest we should go back 100 years or 200 years looking for people who have long since departed this world, but I should like to put a question to the Minister: what steps are taken from time to time to bring to the notice of those who are wards of court and to whose credit money has been lodged in court that that money is there at their disposal if they claim it?

I am told that a notice appears in Iris Oifigiúil from time to time. I do not think the Minister would suggest that that is a serious way of trying to bring to the notice of people their rights. I suggest there is an onus on the State to make a serious effort every so often by publications in the national newspapers and, particularly, in the provincial newspapers, to the effect that named persons or their representatives should communicate with the accountant of the High Court when they may hear something to their advantage. I believe many people do not claim this money lying to their credit through ignorance. Perhaps the money was lodged when they were children of tender years; perhaps the firms of solicitors who had charge have gone out of existence; perhaps there is nobody now to draw their attention to the matter. I think there is an onus on the State, which, through the instrumentality of the High Court, is the custodian or trustee of these funds, to take steps to locate these people and point out their rights to them.

The other point I should like to raise—I raised this matter in the Seanad when a similar Bill was going through some years ago—is that suitors suffer loss from time to time because the money lodged in court to their credit is invested, without reference to them, in national loans or other apparently gilt-edged securities; when these people come to withdraw the money, they find the securities have fallen in value and that the £1,000 is worth only £600 or £700. Some fund should be established out of these unclaimed moneys through which to indemnify these people against loss. I appreciate that if suitors turn up in the years to come, the State will be liable. But that is not enough. An effort should be made to trace the suitors and suitors should be indemnified against any loss by a possible fall in the securities in which the moneys are invested for them.

I take it this money will have to be found eventually by the taxpayer.

We have money of that type?

(Cavan): We are pinching it.

I appreciate the £400,000 odd for Dublin and the £35,000 for Cork. I appreciate that side of the picture, but I suggest that if we have money of this type, then we should pass legislation to use it for one purpose just as well as another. I spent yesterday at a local authority meeting at which we were endeavouring to find money to build houses. On today's Order Paper, there were 15 questions from Dublin Deputies about housing. The only Dublin Deputy who has spoken in this debate so far is looking for more money for the theatre. The question is which is the more essential? Should we use this money for the comfort and wellbeing of our people by providing houses for them or should we use it for amusement? There is a bit of drama, I suggest, in two cities having lost two theatres through fire. There is a bit of drama, too, in trying to find money, of which there is great need in this country today, for essential purposes.

(Interruptions.)

Order, Deputy Corry.

Yesterday we were looking for money for essentials. Today we come into this House and we find that there is some place in which money can be got. Those who have spoken on both sides of this House so far have given their blessing to this Bill, considering apparently that the money is being put to better use in helping to build the Abbey Theatre and the Cork Opera House than it is in being used to house the people who sent them here. God help the people who sent them here. About a year ago, I pointed out here that 70 per cent of the total revenue of this country is poured into this sinkhole.

And they did not appreciate you in the Presidential election.

Will that idiot shut up? I was here long before that Deputy arrived here. I know the means by which he arrived here and I have nothing but contempt for them.

It certainly does not arise on this Bill, and Deputy L'Estrange should allow Deputy Corry to proceed.

(Cavan): Deputy Corry had to steamroll his own Party in order to get here.

Will the gentleman who tried to sack 2,000 men in the Verolme Dockyards please shut up? It is fundamentally wrong that practically £500,000 should be voted here for something the people have proved they do not want. Neither the Abbey nor the Cork Opera House ever paid their way. This money is being spent while every local authority is being put to the pin of their collars endeavouring to find money for houses already contracted for. I would be failing in my duty to my constituents if I did not express that view.

Mr. O'Leary

Deputy Corry should come out from under his reaper and binder and find out what this Bill is all about. Some of us would be more convinced by his sentiments if we did not realise their commercial appeal for his constituents and were we not also aware that he remained notably silent when the Government and Party to which he belonged were drafting fresh taxation to place on the backs of the taxpayers. He had little to do with independent votes at that time, nor did he worry very much about where the money should go. It is in extraordinarily bad taste that he should come in here from his cornfield looking for votes in a matter which it has been agreed should be kept apart from Party politics. I suggest he should look at matters of this kind more carefully and not consider every one as an opportunity for getting up here seeking votes. If he wishes to be so independent, then he should change his Party and become a real independent instead of being a sham independent in the Fianna Fáil Party.

It is good that the money from this source is being used for a pretty worthwhile purpose. Dublin at the moment is rapidly becoming an artistic wasteland. Already two theatres are under the hammer. The Gaiety is in a state of suspense and nobody appears to be worried. The Olympia is under a similar interdict. It is a good thing to see two theatres saved by this measure, although it is a small thing we are doing for the theatre generally. It is the view of our Party that we should look after the leisure time of our people as well as we can. The Taoiseach some years ago referred to these objectives and said there are things besides economic development which a responsible Government trying to look after their people must consider. One of these things is the theatre. We should strive as hard as possible to have a living theatre in this country. It is a great tragedy that the theatre here which, even on a material basis, is such an attraction for tourists from abroad, is not flourishing, and that Dublin, which was once a world capital of theatre, is today rapidly becoming a small provincial centre in that regard.

We cannot expect the new Abbey Theatre to reclaim its lost glory if it is seen to be an isolated instance in theatre. We can only have a live Abbey Theatre when it is seen to be part of the living theatre here. The one danger in getting this money from the funds of suitors in a way in which we do not have to cross Party lines is that we may find ourselves patting ourselves on the back and saying: "What a great thing we are doing". We may feel we are spending it well by spending it on the Abbey Theatre, but we must look on this matter in the way Deputy Dunne mentioned. We must give our people an appreciation of the theatre as something covering the whole country. We are helping here only two urban centres, Dublin and Cork. In Dublin, there are many more theatres falling into disuse. We cannot hope to have Irish actors on Irish television, unless we have sufficient theatres in Dublin to keep the actors in employment. Actors, like everybody else, must live and have employment at decent wages and, as far as possible, security of employment. They do not have that in Dublin at present. An increasing number of our best actors have to go to Britain. This is rapidly turning Dublin into an artistic wasteland, Dublin which at one time could hold its head high as a world capital of theatre and as the birthplace of so many world famous dramatists in years past.

I hope the new Abbey Theatre will get away from the pot-boiler kitchen comedy on which it has been existing for so long. As in the early days of the theatre, they should attempt to translate life in Ireland in its present transition about them and bring it before us on the stage. I would like to see them attempting to get school children on subsidised theatre trips far more often than in the past to ensure that the future generations would not lose touch, as they have in other countries, with the living theatre. It is a sad truth—and I think Deputy Corry bore it out eloquently—that we are increasingly becoming a nation of philistines, people who see no other point in life than the crackle of green pound notes. This country's significance in the world today becomes much smaller the day it is measured purely in those terms.

There is one other matter. We might consider turning the Taibhdhearc into a bilingual professional theatre. By doing this, we would be bringing help for the theatre to another part of the country. Other countries have done a lot for the theatre. Our local authorities could do far more for the theatre and the arts than they are doing. Our Party are very happy to see the money used in this way. That money comes from an area in which there may have been misery in the past. At least, it is being put to some good use. We should bear in mind that we are doing very little for the theatre, that we should be doing far more. We should not get the idea that by giving this little bit of money for two particular theatres, we can wash our hands of our obligations in this regard. It is a real tragedy that, on the one hand, theatres are closing down, old-established theatres like the Gaiety to which MacLiammoir referred as "this ghost-laden area", when speaking on the subject in Dublin last year, and, on the other hand, we have people tramping around the country looking for money for a John F. Kennedy Memorial Concert Hall, when the greatest monument John F. Kennedy, who had a real appreciation of the arts and leisure, would desire, would be a live theatre in Dublin and not a concert hall on the outskirts of Dublin to be used on very rare occasions. We would be building a more healthy, living memorial to a great man if we scrapped that concert hall plan and used the money to save one of the theatres under order of execution in Dublin.

I must rise to my feet if for no other reason than to defend the Kennedy Concert Hall from the attack made on it by Deputy O'Leary, but I might say that was not alone what made me speak on this subject. It is particularly suitable that this money should be used for artistic purposes, and I am glad to see this Bill will empower the Government to hand over some of the money for an artistic purpose. Far from agreeing with the previous speaker who attacked the concert hall idea, I think that what is to be done for the Abbey Theatre in this Bill could very well be done also for the Kennedy Concert Hall. Unfortunately, we seem to have reached a stage in connection with that project that, owing to the financial difficulties at the moment, it is not going forward with the speed with which we would like it to advance. It would be very appropriate to use some of the funds available under this Bill for getting ahead with that scheme.

I would remind any Deputy who may think that the concert hall was not one of the most suitable ways of commemorating that great President of the United States, a man who we like to think was Irish, that he was one of the most artistic people who ever occupied that high office in the United States or, indeed, one of the most artistic men who ever became President of any country. He, with his wide knowledge and love of the arts, did not confine himself to the dramatic arts, the musical arts or the visual arts; he took an interest in all of the arts. I am sure he would be glad to see the funds under this Bill being used in a way which would encourage the dramatic arts. It happens that on the advice of the Arts Council, the Government decided to set up this memorial which is to take the form of a concert hall.

I would remind the House that, happily, in this day and age, people of all ages, of all income groups, attend concerts in very large numbers, and that, far from a concert hall being something which would cater for only a few people, it would cater for very large audiences. Furthermore, the concert hall would not be confined to music. There are other purposes to which it could usefully be put.

In this city we lack a suitable place for international conferences. We are rapidly expanding our hotel room accommodation. We can now house many more and are increasingly adding to our capacity in that respect. We can now provide suitable accommodation for large-scale conferences for which a few years ago we had not hotels. We are now in a much better position in that regard, but we have not got a suitable venue for conferences. That is one of the purposes to which the concert hall could be put. It has not in any way been abandoned, but at the present moment there is this financial difficulty which seems to be slowing it down. I would suggest to the Minister that some of the money could be used to make a real start on that project. I, as well as other memebers of the all-Party Committee feel we would like to see some more concrete evidence of a movement in connection with this national memorial, because that is what it is, to the late John F. Kennedy.

I would ask the Minister to go into the question as to how far some of the moneys in the Courts of Justice could be used for this very fine purpose, notwithstanding what any Deputy might feel about the dramatic art. I know that the Labour Party, as a majority, feel that the concert hall is a very worthy memorial to John F. Kennedy, and I am sure Deputy O'Leary, in his enthusiasm for the dramatic art, inadvertently gave a kick to the musical art.

Mr. O'Leary

It is only a question as to which is the better memorial.

The one which the Arts Council and the Government chose——

And the Dáil.

And the Dáil, happens to coincide exactly with my own view.

Very briefly, I wish to welcome the Bill. With reference to Deputy O'Leary's suggestion in regard to the lack of encouragement of the arts by local authorities, I want to say a word in defence of that much-abused body, Dublin Corporation.

I do not think it comes into this Bill.

I intend to refer to it very briefly. Deputy O'Leary referred to Dublin as an artistic wasteland. Were it not for the action of Dublin Corporation, two theatres, the Gaiety and the Olympia, would have disappeared already. When a proposal came before the Corporation for the demolition of these buildings, the Corporation held up the plans and second thoughts were had by their purchasers. The thought behind that was not only to delay action but to preserve two of the oldest theatres in the city. I hope that both will be saved. If they are not, it will not be the fault of Dublin Corporation.

Even though the Government provide this money it will go to barren use unless the people support the Abbey much more than they have been doing. It has frequently been a depressing experience to go there and see so many empty seats. While I know that a new theatre will attract people for a while, the future of the Abbey will not be secured by a piece of legislation.

I am all for the building of the Kennedy Memorial Hall. It suits my own purpose because the site on which it is to be built is the site of some derelict houses. This being so, the memorial to the late President Kennedy will be built on sound foundations because of the fact that a new hall will arise on the site of bad houses. That will be a true memorial to President Kennedy.

This Bill has been welcomed by all Parties, principally for the reason that the money is to be spent on preserving the theatre in this country to some extent. An effort is being made in this proposal, and in the proposal for the new concert hall, to do something that the Irish people are not doing and have not been doing for some time. It is a regrettable fact that the theatre, as a living entity, has been gradually disappearing, not just from our capital city alone but from our other cities. Apart from the efforts of many voluntary workers to keep the theatre and music alive in assembly halls and basement theatres, we have been neglectful of our Irish heritage in this regard.

This nation had been known for centuries as one which has sent its missionaries abroad for the conversion of Europe and other countries. We have also sent writers and actors abroad and they have been an example to the rest of the world. We have produced some of the finest poets, playwrights and actors, but to go to any theatre in this country now, especially the Abbey, one would think one was in a city where the people had no knowledge, no appreciation and no regard for the arts.

It is true to say that we will require, if we continue to develop, something in addition to the material things of life. When the economic situation was many times worse than it is at present, and nobody suggests that for many thousands of our people the economic situation is other than bad, you had active and live support for the theatre all over the country. I hope that when this money has been spent for this purpose and when these buildings have been completed, the policy of those running them will be such as will attract and give new life to those who are interested in the arts, that this policy will contribute in some way to the education of our young people in the arts.

Many of our local cinemas have gone out of existence, perhaps due to the attraction of a little game called bingo. Many rural theatres would also be empty, were it not for the attraction of that game of bingo. Nobody can claim that for the past dozen years or so, the Abbey Theatre has attracted a live interest and the fault, to some extent, must lie on the shoulders of those responsible for the selection of the plays presented. Dublin may become an artistic wilderness because the country is developing into an artistic wilderness. Dublin is not cut off from the remainder of the country by an eight foot or a ten foot wall.

It is regrettable that the Gaiety and the Olympia, even though they catered for different tastes, have been in danger of being closed down. I do not know if the Minister has any power to do so under this Bill but the question of assistance to these two theatres should be seriously considered. One theatre in Dublin and one opera house in Cork will not be sufficient to recreate interest in dramatic art or a love of music. Mention has been made of subsidisation and it is a happy matter that on this occasion the State is not having to impose taxation to provide this money. However, there is practically no European country that does not subsidise drama, opera and music very substantially.

The various festivals held here from time to time attract interest and bring in many tourists. With a live theatre, further interest could be engendered in people from Britain, the Continent and the United States. Writers and dramatists need to address themselves to an audience. The greatest poetry is not of any great value if it is not read and appreciated. The greatest dramatist must have a stage. The most wonderful musician must have a place where he can be listened to. Otherwise, his talents will be largely wasted.

The Bill has been supported generally. It should not be sufficient merely to complete the payment of money due in respect of the Abbey and the Cork Opera House. We should go on from there to think seriously in this House of further development. When the situation becomes a bit easier, even if it were necessary to provide money from public funds, we should think of assisting the development of the arts and music.

The building of a concert hall, which has been approved by the House, has been temporarily shelved. It is true, as Deputy Dockrell has said, that the era of international conferences dawned many years ago. The number of such conferences is multiplying year by year. The number of delegates and friends of delegates who travel to various centres is increasing. The attendance of delegates at international conferences, festivals of music and so on brings very substantial economic benefits to the area concerned. It is not without reason that in many European and Asian cities, governments are prepared to spend very substantial amounts of money in providing facilities for international conferences of one kind or another. They may do it for purposes of prestige but they also have in mind the possibility of attracting tourists and visitors and thus strengthening their economies.

It is true to say that in Dublin and throughout the country the theatre has been in a bad way for a long time. It is also true that outstanding actors, dramatists and writers feel that there is little opportunity for them in their own country and there is very little opportunity for those who are interested in artistic professions and who would develop in due course to become outstanding in the various branches. The use of this money for the development of the arts and music will help and, therefore, I should like to add my support to the support which has already been expressed by many Deputies.

I should like to express complete agreement with the point made by Deputy O'Leary on this question of the Kennedy Concert Hall. I have expressed on a previous occasion the view that the fund for this memorial should be closed and that the money should be utilised towards the creation of John F. Kennedy acting scholarships. There are in this country very many amateur acting societies. For instance, there is the Amateur Drama Council of Ireland and the Amateur Drama League. The moneys now in the Kennedy Concert Hall Fund should be utilised towards the granting of a scholarship from time to time to the best acting personnel in amateur dramatic groups. I know the Government and the Arts Council have their own views on this matter, that they wish to create a John F. Kennedy Concert Hall. I do not agree with this view. I believe the idea of a concert hall should be scrapped. In my view, there is not sufficient Government subvention towards the arts generally. If this fund were utilised towards the subvention of amateur dramatics and the encouragement of the creation of an actors' studio of some description in Dublin, where there is none, we would have better professional artistes. We have a great tradition in our country. We have a tradition of O'Casey, of AE—George Russell— Yeats and many others. But this great tradition of say 30 to 40 years ago has not been maintained. The impetus has not been kept up, except in some isolated instances.

I am a lover of the Abbey Theatre traditions even in its present situation, and I look forward to the next fortnight when we can get into the new Abbey for the first time.

There was one point made by the Leader of the Opposition which would indicate that he and I have been briefed by the same group. I refer to the provision of more money for the maintenance of the King's Inns Library. The King's Inns Library, as the House is aware, is situated at Henrietta Street. My own experience, apart from any other consideration, is that it is a first-class library, of great historic value. The real problem at the moment is the prevalence of dry rot. I would appeal to the Minister to give more money—the sum involved is small: £20,000 or £30,000—for the purpose of the containment of this dry rot and other related matters. We know what dry not can do to wood but it can be said to affect books just as badly. I should like to add my voice to that of the Leader of the Opposition in this connection.

I do not agree with what Deputy Corry said. I am inclined to think that he is somewhat of a philistine. We should get the situation into perspective. This is not a matter for taxation. The public are not being asked to provide this money. This is the point Deputy Corry missed. This money is coming from the fund of suitors and has nothing to do with the taxpayer one way or the other. Another very important matter is that if claimants look for money from the fund, the Minister for Finance has agreed to guarantee payment, so the taxpayer is not at a loss.

Except in that event.

Except in that event, but I think the Minister for Finance has guaranteed that nobody will be at a loss. Is that not the position?

I agree with the Deputy's line of argument but the only eventuality in which the taxpayer would have to pay would be if the Minister had to put up the money and tax the people to get it. Is that not right?

That is correct.

There is very little likelihood of that happening. Once more, I welcome the Bill and I wish to reiterate my view that the Kennedy Concert Hall Fund should be closed and John F. Kennedy acting scholarships should be offered to amateur dramatic groups.

The debate has ranged very far and wide. Indeed, for a period I thought I was in charge of a measure to create a Ministry of Fine Arts and Culture. I do not know what view would be adopted by other Parties in this House of that form of creation.

Amazement. It might be all right if you were to amalgamate a few Ministries.

I have no pretensions in that respect. I have simply come in here to pilot through what might be described as a machinery measure to enable these funds to be transferred for the completion of the Cork Opera House and the Abbey Theatre and to deal with commitments already entered into in respect of the construction of these buildings. However, as the debate has ranged widely, I think certain of the matters raised should be dealt with by me.

Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Andrews raised the question of providing additional money for the King's Inns Library. Under a previous Funds of Suitors Act, funds were supplied for this purpose and it is a bit late in the day now for me to agree to a further allocation of £50,000 in this direction, sympathetic as I might be towards the preservation of that library which is certainly one of the finest libraries in the country in some of the finest surroundings. However much I might be disposed to allocate funds, it is a bit late in the day as regards this legislation and I think it should be another day's work. It is a bit late in regard to the progress made with this piece of legislation.

There would not be any machinery difficulties in that. Is it not simply a question of making more money available under this Bill?

There are other aspects of this. At present the King's Inns Library is administered by the Benchers of the King's Inns and the whole question of the legal education of both solicitors and barristers is at the moment getting weighty consideration in the report of the Commission on Higher Education.

That will not have anything to do with the building.

We may have to take certain steps in regard to that building and have a look at the whole scope of legal education and also consider if we are going to devote moneys from the funds of suitors for this purpose because I think the public at large should have some means of access to and use of the King's Inns Library. I feel that these matters should be gone into in depth before considering any other commitments, particularly when this allocation is sought at so late a stage. We have been reasonably generous in this respect under a previous Funds of Suitors Act——

So that the precedent is there.

There is the additional fact that due to the attention which we have given to these funds in recent years, they have been pretty well depleted. It is not a bottomless barrel and the £860,000 now there in cash funds from which we are drawing is a current fund in respect of which liabilities may have to be met. It is not what is called a dormant fund, by which I mean one on which there have been no claims for 15 years or more. The main fund is a current fund in respect of which liabilities have to be met but of course in respect of which also further funds accrue each day.

As regards Deputy Dockrell's query about using these funds for the Kennedy Memorial Hall, that is completely out. Because of the large capital involved, the Memorial Hall will have to be financed from another source and any further raids on the Funds of Suitors will have to be of a marginal nature.

Of course all contributions will be thankfully received.

Deputies O'Leary and Dockrell, Deputy Larkin and other Deputies ranged abroad over the cultural position generally in the country in regard to the encouragement of arts and the importance of helping arts in every respect. While that is very desirable I am certain that in the case of the new Abbey Theatre, with its new premises, particularly having regard to the new shareholders recently appointed and the enlargement of the articles of association of the society administering the theatre, a new approach will be made. Indeed, evidence of this has already been forthcoming in the past 12 months, in that the new Abbey is seeking a new arts director and is obviously looking at its functions in the new theatre in what I might call a broader sense than heretofore. I am certain we all want to see the Abbey having a broader perspective in regard to plays produced and in regard to groups invited to perform there. Indeed they might also set their sights on making regular provincial tours which have not been an evident part of the Abbey's activities for a number of years.

Deputy Larkin spoke about the lack of interest in the theatre in Ireland today. I cannot see how he thinks this is so because there has been in the past few years particularly a flowering of the dramatic art in this country particularly exemplified in the amateur drama field where we now have hundreds of flourishing dramatic societies in the country with the regional festivals and the all Ireland Drama Festival, with thousands of players participating, admittedly in an amateur capacity. I am assured, however, that the standard of these players is equivalent to the highest professional standards. In the years ahead, I should like to see the Abbey Theatre tapping this vast reservoir of talent which exists in the country because it cannot be gainsaid that if there is one particular art form at which we are very good, it is the drama. Of all the art forms, this is the one in which we have proved ourselves best. I hope that, by having a broader perspective so as to include offerings of drama and players of international as well as national stature, the Abbey will by recruiting players from this great reservoir of the dramatic art in our own country and by inducting them into its own atmosphere, play a more dynamic part in the growth of professional theatre in future.

Deputy Larkin wondered why plays are not produced by our greatest playwrights in this country. Probably the greatest Irish dramatist we have had in recent years resides in an Irish country town in Kerry and all his productions take place in Ireland and are produced by Irish companies. The Dublin Theatre Festival has in the past two years put on two productions, one of which held the stage in London over a very long period and the other is now attracting top audiences in New York. These have both come up through the Dublin Theatre Festival and captivated London two years ago and New York at the present time.

I do not see anything weak in the state of the Irish theatre on this aspect of drama. Rather do I feel that we are in for a new flowering, evident in the increasing number of amateur plays and players and higher standards of professional theatre. I should like to see the Abbey capping all these. All the assurance I have been given is that the new Abbey Theatre is one of the finest and most modern theatres —architecturally and aesthetically speaking from the dramatists' point of view—in the world and we shall have this open shortly.

All this is not strictly relevant but I am glad that Deputies Dunne, O'Leary, Larkin and Dockrell in particular ranged into this fruitful field of what might be described as a general debate on fine arts, the dramatic art in particular. Deputy Dunne spoke of the encouragement of other forms of dramatic activity apart from the Abbey. This is a matter which requires investigation. The Arts Council is doing something of this work and Bord Fáilte made a special advance to the Dublin Theatre Festival also. I understand that the Irish Amateur Drama Council also do this. Probably bodies doing this sort of thing should be co-ordinated to a greater degree and the Arts Council is probably the body to do it.

The particular funds we are dealing with here are funds which I feel should be used in a very sparing fashion as needs arise such as the rebuilding of the national theatre or the restoration of a prominent opera house. The funds have been considerably depleted already. I should like to see some other sort of permanent organisation for dealing with what Deputy Dunne has in mind, that is, the practical assistance of the theatre generally outside capital works of this nature. This is a matter which comes within the ambit of the Arts Council, largely. Any progress in the line of country mentioned by Deputy Dunne could best be made within the ambit of the Arts Council. I have every sympathy with the point made by him and agree with his remarks very largely.

I do not think any other matters arose, really, for comment by me. I wish to emphasise again that I welcome the constructive debate we have had, which widened and went beyond the mere terms of the Bill itself. I wish also to say that the all-Party support and interest shown by Deputies in this matter show that we are all rightly of the view that it is not by bread alone that man lives and that we realise the importance of culture and the arts generally, moving, as we are, into an age where the occupation of leisure will be so important. These are matters which must be borne in mind to a greater degree as a wider part of our citizenry participate, and has a chance to participate, in the arts generally.

Question put and agreed to.

We have no objection to taking all Stages today if the Minister undertakes to examine Deputy Cosgrave's suggestion between now and the Seanad discussion?

I will examine it but I have already——

The Minister has indicated his view. The only point I want to emphasise is that there is a precedent there, as the previous Funds of Suitors Bill was used for that purpose. I do not think the amount now required is all that large, in relation to this.

Fifty thousand pounds. I shall look at it.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Top
Share